The Advent of Nanotechnology

Technology has long facilitated the pursuit of scientific discovery.  But the creation of technology impacts the nature of science as well; people seek to manipulate and exploit nature more than ever today.  Throughout the past century, anti-technology groups feared the coming “megatechnology”(Mills 105) and its impact on the environment, and writers fantasized about runaway artificial intelligence.  Meanwhile, scientists assuredly continued their work for the sake of discovery.  Science serves a political purpose too: it is the key to keeping the United States a superpower in technology.  Scientific exploration itself has a tremendous place in society, beginning last century with the Cold War push for science in the schools and the nation.  The economy, pharmaceutical research, biotechnology, and the computer chip industry all largely depend on scientific progress as well. 

Science would hold a lesser place in American culture today if not for the public’s dependence upon technology.  Technology uniquely (and dangerously) solves our natural dilemmas with an artificial fix.  Science is often seen following this lead by facilitating the discovery of novel solutions to our technological problems.  Technology itself is even the reason we can depend on science for reliable models of nature.  Computing abilities in particular revolutionized scientific progress in the last century.  The next technological revolution of the 21^st century may be nanotechnology. 

Scientists speculate that nanotechnology would benefit everything from microprocessing and lab work to agriculture and medicine.  If these areas are advanced by nanotechnology, society will feel the commercial impact of nanoscience because of its implications in manufacturing, as well as its tremendous marketability.  Perhaps this is why Washington passed an initiative in 1999 to fund the research of nanotechnology, and the National Science Foundation created a network of institutions researching nanoscience in the 1990s.  Development of such infrastructure is evidence that the nanotechnology explosion is likely to occur in the next few decades.  Furthermore, its impact on society should not be underestimated.  The scientific and public arenas should maintain a dialogue concerning the goals of science and the accountability of scientists for their impact on society.  The highly controversial endeavor to create a man-made living system, for example, would enable nanosystems to self-replicate and receive task assignments from scientists. Or sensational media might stir public fear of invisible weaponry and sensory systems developed by terrorists. 

The public may have little to fear for now, since these capabilities are still out of reach.  Yet it is the objective of this paper to demonstrate that nanotechnology is not in its infantile stages, but it has been a force in development over the last few decades.  Controlled design and assembly at the atomic level should affect existing fields like microcomputing and medicine, while also creating new fields based on newly discovered properties of this scale.  Before speculating about the long-range goals of nanotechnology, however, it is necessary to define its primary goals and foundation.

The Nearing Nanoscale

One nanometer is one-billionth of a meter.  For the sake of comparison, the diameter of a single atom is ¼ nanometer, and the diameter of a human hair is 10,000 nanometers.  The smallest devices on commercially available chips are about 200 nanometers.  The nanoscale refers to dimension ranging from a fraction of a nanometer to tens of nanometers (U.S. Government 59).  Nanotechnology itself has unlimited potential for everyday application.  For computers especially, the nanoscale is of prime importance.  Microelectronics evolved based on the decreased size of individual circuits and consequently, the high density and integration of chips in a small space.  By continuing to reduce the scale from a micron to nanometer scale, the increase in speed and power of computers will continue. 

Nanotechnology is concerned with materials and systems whose structures and components exhibit novel and significantly improved physical, chemical, and biological properties and processes because of their small nanoscale size.  According to the Interagency Working Group on Nano Science, “these novel properties and phenomena of nano-based entities can be exploited as we gain control of structures and devices at the atomic, molecular, and supramolecular levels, and as we learn to efficiently manufacture and use these devices” (U.S. Government 59).  New behavior at the nanoscale is not necessarily predictable from that observed at large size scales.  Important changes in behavior are caused not by the order of magnitude of the size reduction, but also by new phenomena such as size confinement, predominance of interfacial phenomena, and quantum mechanics.  It is notable that all relevant phenomena at nanoscale are caused by the size of the organized structure as compared to a molecular scale, and by the interactions between the structures.  Once the feature size is set, scientists will enhance material properties and device functions beyond capabilities known or even imagined.  Reducing the dimensions of structures leads to entities with novel properties, such as carbon nanotubes, quantum wires and dots, thin films, DNA based structures, and laser emitters.  

Geneology of Nanotechnology

Although several accounts of nanotechnology’s roots have been written, I found interest in one that relates the quest for man-made life to nanotechnology.  The history began with Erwin Schrödinger, a physicist who received the Nobel Prize in 1933 for discovering new forms of atomic energy.  In 1945, he published a slim volume that asked a simple question: “What is Life?”  Schrödinger's concern was not philosophical, but asked “how the events in space and time within the spatial boundary of a living organism could be accounted for by physics and chemistry”(Crandall 18).  The essay was a look into the materiality of cellular life, in which the physicist speculated that the theorized gene was able to reproduce itself, and also use a form of code to determine the development of the organism.  Schrödinger thus anticipated the key characteristic of DNA- its capacity to act as a set of instructions for the material construction of living forms.  In the same year, John von Neumann published his First Draft of a Report on the EDVAC, which described the basic concepts of the modern computer. Given the apparent similarities between organic systems and logical computation, mathematicians responsible for designing the first electronic computers inevitably investigated the information-processing capabilities of both living creatures and engineered automata (Crandall 20-22).

Von Neumann was a brilliant mathematician, who consulted on the Manhattan Project and pioneered what would become the standard architecture for computing machinery.  He occupied himself with what he called automata theory, which involved formulating axioms and proving theorems about assemblies of simple elements that might in an idealized way represent either possible circuits in man-made automata or patterns in organisms.  One question he dealt with in his automata theory was that of a collection of connected elements computing and transmitting information. Within this automaton each element is subject to malfunction.  How can one arrange the parts so that the overall output of the automaton is error free?  The other problem resembled genetics, constructing models of automata capable of reproducing themselves. In being able to reproduce, these machines would represent man-made models of life.

In 1953, James Watson and Francis Crick developed a convincing model for the structure of DNA. 

The new understanding of hereditary material sparked an explosion of investigations into the molecular mechanisms of organic life.  DNA programmed the cell to produce all of the molecules it needed to sustain life processes, largely through three-dimensional design of protein folding, which science has yet to decipher.

In 1959, Richard Feynman delivered a now famous lecture, “There is Plenty of Room at the Bottom” (IWGN 60).  He stimulated his audience at the California Institute of Technology with the expectation of new discoveries facilitated by materials and devices at the atomic scale. These discoveries, Feynman pointed out, require a new class of miniaturized instrumentation to manipulate and measure the properties of structures – nanostructures.  In this talk, Feynman described a recursive process for building very small machines: each generation of machine tools would craft another generation with finer capabilities.  In his conclusion, he predicted the arrival of atomically precise machinery: "I am not afraid to consider the final question as to whether, ultimately—in the very great future—we can arrange atoms the way we want; the very atoms, all the way down!”(IWGN 60).

In the next few decades, chemists and biologists focused on figuring out the molecular structures that constitute materiality from the "bottom up," while physicists and electrical engineers attempted to build ever smaller machines from the "top down."  Both efforts resulted in powerful technologies.  Molecular science produced revolutionary medicines as well as the synthetic materials that permeate the modern world— including nylon, Tyvek, Teflon, and superglue.  Micromachinists, after creating the first transistor in 1948, learned to build logic and computation machines with micron-scale components, starting a global industry second only to agriculture.

The recent years have tried to bring the two monumental efforts together into a new scientific era.  While top-down engineers such as computer chip designers build a fairly small number of complex machines as minutely as possible, chemists and other bottom-up technologists build relatively simple but atomically precise machines by the billions.  The revolution they seek is nanotechnology, which rises out of this confluence and aims at building complex, atomically precise machines by the trillions.

One agreed upon stepping stone for developing both approach to the design and control of sub-micron systems was the invention of the scanning tunneling microscope (STM) in 1981.  The device, first developed by Gerd Binnig and Heinrich Rohrer at IBM's Zurich Research Labs, provided the first direct images of individual atoms.  The technique involves an ultrafine stylus that hovers slightly above a conducting surface and senses topographic details via tiny fluctuations in the 'tunneling current' that forms between the stylus and the surface.  In effect, the STM senses the outer surface of the electron cloud that defines an atom.  The STM, which earned Binnig and Rohrer the 1986 Nobel Prize in physics, images only conducting surfaces, but this limitation was overcome with the development of the atomic force microscope (AFM), in 1986, which images nonconducting surfaces with similar resolution.

Also in 1981, K. Eric Drexler, a researcher at the Space Systems Laboratory of MIT, published a paper entitled, "Molecular Engineering: An Approach to the Development of General Capabilities for Molecular Manipulation."  He argued that the natural mechanisms of protein synthesis demonstrate the feasibility of human-engineered molecular machines (Crandall 24).  "To deny the feasibility of advanced molecular machinery, one must apparently maintain either (i) that design of proteins will remain infeasible indefinitely, or (ii) that complex machines cannot be made of proteins, or (iii) that protein machines cannot build second-generation machines"(24).  Drexler argued that none of these objections can be sustained.  The following year, Drexler introduced the concept of molecular engineering to a popular audience with the publication of "When molecules will do the work" in Smithsonian magazine.  The article generated response of mixed reviews and skepticism (24). 

In 1985, the discovery of a new form of carbon molecule by Richard Smalley captured the attention of nanotechnology enthusiasts.  Carbon participates in a huge variety of molecules, but only two pure-carbon forms were previously known: graphite, which consists of two-dimensional sheets, and diamond, which is a three-dimensional network of interlinked atoms.  In contrast, the molecule buckminsterfullerene contains exactly sixty carbon atoms in the shape of a soccer ball.  In 1991, buckyballs, as they came to be known, were heralded as the "Molecule of the Year" by the American Association for the Advancement of Science and appeared on the cover of Scientific American.  Named after R. Buckminster Fuller, these roughly spherical molecules are being investigated for a number of diverse applications, and their immensely stable structure has led to speculation of using them as viable components in various nanotechnological efforts (Crandall 25).

1987 saw the first workshop on artificial life, held in Los Alamos, New Mexico.  The workshop brought together 160 computer scientists, biologists, physicists, anthropologists, and others; and all shared a common interest in the simulation and synthesis of living systems.  Several papers presented at this groundbreaking conference demonstrated the confluence of top-down and bottom-up approaches to molecular systems design.  One attendee named Conrad Schneiker suggested that "there are many ways that nanotechnology can eventually be applied to the development of artificial life… (1) We can start with a completely natural life form and gradually transform it (bootstrap it) into a totally artificial life form by using molecule-by-molecule replacement. (2) We can develop a hybrid living system that incorporates some nanotechnology for computing functions, and some microtechnology for artificial replication"(Crandall 27).  Thus began the efforts of scientists to create a life form using nanotechnology.

In 1988, Richard Feldmann, a computer scientist at the National Institute of Health (NIH), presented a paper, "Applying Engineering Principles to the Design of a Cellular Biology.  He argued that building a biological organism was a reasonable goal for the scientific community.  His opinion apparently echoes the optimism of computer scientists: "With exponentially increasing computer power, it will take far less than 80 years to be able to design and implement a biological system. The issue seems to be simply one of deciding we want to do a project like this, not the technological complexity of the project per se"(30).

Two years after the first conference on artificial life, the first international conference on nanotechnology was held in Palo Alto, California, sponsored by the Foresight Institute (founded by Drexler) and the Global Business Network, and hosted by the Department of Computer Science at Stanford University.  The volume that resulted from that conference presents a variety of technologies that contribute to nanotechnology as well as several perspectives on the consequences of success.  The discussion included atomic probe microscopes, self-assembly in molecular crystals, protein engineering, and micromachining.  Although the public had not yet heard much about nanotechnology, the fever was spreading amongst scientists. 

The journal Nanotechnology was launched in July of 1990 by the English Institute of Physics.  The groundbreaking issue included articles on various submicron technologies, including "The Scanning Tunneling Microscope as a Tool for Nanofabrication."  That same year, IBM set a record for miniaturized publicity, bringing nanotechnology to the attention of the popular press by spelling out their company logo with thirty-five xenon atoms on a nickel crystal (35).  Opposing scientists began to subdue their skepticism about controlling the position of individual atoms.

The next year, several companies announced intentions to invest in nanoscale research.  IBM's Vice President for Science and Technology, J. A. Armstrong, wrote, "I believe that nanoscience and nanotechnology will be central to the next epoch of the information age, and will be as revolutionary as science and technology at the micron scale have been since the early '70s.... Not only do we have the ability to make such nanostructures, but, as an outgrowth of the invention of scanning tunneling microscopy, we have the micromechanical ability to manipulate, as well as to see and measure, these structures.... Indeed, we will have the ability to make electronic and mechanical devices atom-by-atom when that is appropriate to the job at hand."  The Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) in Japan also announced the funding of a broad nanotechnology research effort.  In the same year, the New York Times reported on the second United States conference on molecular nanotechnology.  Andrew Pollack, science editor for the Times, wrote, "The ability to manipulate matter by its most basic components—molecule by molecule and even atom by atom — while now very crude, might one day allow people to build almost unimaginably small electric circuits and machines, producing, for example, a supercomputer invisible to the naked eye. Some futurists even imagine building tiny robots that could travel through the body performing surgery on damaged cells."  Such publicity inspired writers to explore a range of such possibilities in works of science fiction, such as Michael Flynn’s The Nanotech Chronicles (39).

In 1992, Drexler ^__ who is perhaps most responsible for promulgating a vision of molecular robots "performing surgery on damaged cells" ^__ moved to substantiate his musings with publication of Nanosystems: Molecular Machinery, Manufacturing, and Computing.  In this technical work, Drexler presents several mechanisms—bearings, gears, cams, clutches, as well as computational elements—designed to provide the basic components for nanotechnological assemblers.  Though these structures cannot be built today, Drexler argues that assemblers will be feasible within the next few decades. Despite receiving mixed reviews, Drexler’s effort to describe the details of nanotechnological machinery is currently the most thorough articulation of molecular engineering's potential (40). 

Drexler foresees that molecular assemblers will be able to build large-scale, molecularly precise structures very rapidly (one kilogram objects in under an hour) and power them with billions of microscopic computers (each smaller than a blood cell) capable of generating more than 10^16 (10 quadrillion, or 10 million billion) operations per second.  For comparison, the current goal for "high performance computing" in the United States and elsewhere is the construction of a teraflop machine, which would generate 10^12 (one trillion) operations per second, whereas scientific workstations of the mid 1990s are reaching to perform 10^9 (one billion) operations per second and most desktop computers perform no more than 10^7 (10 million) (Crandall 42).  Whether or not his vision of the future comes to pass, the continuing research efforts of thousands of molecular scientists and technologists seem destined to produce an exponentially increasing capacity to build molecularly precise structures.  The efforts should culminate in the capacity to construct ever smaller and ever more powerful computational and robotic systems.

In 1992, the British journal Nature held their first nanotechnology conference in Tokyo thanks to efforts from around the world.  IBM's Don Eigler (the man who spelled out their logo with xenon atoms), Richard Smalley (codiscoverer of buckyballs), and others made presentations.  In the conference volume, J. Doyne Farmer, a physicist in the Complex Systems Group at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, wrote,

“Within fifty to a hundred years, a new class of organisms is likely to emerge. These organisms will be artificial in the sense that they will originally be designed by humans. However, they will reproduce, and will 'evolve' into something other than their original form; they will be 'alive' under any reasonable definition of the word. These organisms will evolve in a fundamentally different manner than contemporary biological organisms, since their reproduction will be under at least partial conscious control, giving it a Lamarckian component. The pace of evolutionary change consequently will be extremely rapid. The advent of artificial life will be the most significant historical event since the emergence of human beings. The impact on humanity and the biosphere could be enormous, larger than the industrial revolution, nuclear weapons, or environmental pollution. We must take steps now to shape the emergence of artificial organisms; they have potential to be either the ugliest terrestrial disaster, or the most beautiful creation of humanity. “(45) 

Farmer warned that nanotechnology could join the list of science’s most controversial discoveries, leading to a negative imprint on future society and culture.  Furthermore, competition and blind ambition of scientists could quickly turn a triumph into a technological disaster.  The unpredictability factor of completely new properties makes the development of self-directing systems something to fear.  Perhaps a self-propagating system would create an imbalance in an ecosystem, or disrupt healthy human cell processes in unpredicted ways. 

Also in 1992, the Institute for Scientific Information noted that the prefix "nano-" was one of the most popular among new journals, including Nanobiology and Nanostructured Materials.  In 1993, the National Science Foundation (NSF) committed funding for the formation of a National Nanofabrication Users Network, to include Cornell University, Howard University, Pennsylvania State University, Stanford University, and the University of California at Santa Barbara. The NSF's announcement noted that nanofabrication is a critical enabling technology for a wide variety of disciplines and that the network would help the nation remain at the forefront of many growing research areas (Crandall 45).  A number of these areas have commercial applications as well.  With this affirmation, the scientific world seemed to open its doors to nanotechnology.

In a parallel development, enhanced computational capability now enables sophisticated computer simulations of nanostructures.  These new techniques have caught the attention of scientists worldwide.  Traditional models and theories for most material properties and device operations involve assumptions leading to “critical scale lengths” that are frequently larger than 100 nm.  When the dimensions of a material structure are under respective critical length scale, the models are unable to describe the novel phenomena.  Scientists in all materials and technology disciplines are in avid pursuit of the measurement and fabrication of nanostructures to see where and what kind of interesting new phenomena occur.  Furthermore, nanostructures offer a new paradigm: materials manufactured by assembling to create an entity rather than by the painstaking chiseling away from a larger structure (U.S. Government Printing Office 60).  The utilization of self-assembly and self-organization would further enhance the revolutionary constitution of the nanoscale devices.

Nanotechnology could affect all of the following areas, though at different levels of plausibility.

Microelectronics

With the small size of a nanotube, the flow of electrons can be controlled with almost perfect precision.  Scientists have recently demonstrated in nanotubes a phenomenon called Coulomb blockade, in which electrons strongly repulse attempts to insert more than one electron at a time onto a nanotube.  This phenomenon may make it easier to build single-electron transistors, the ultimate in sensitive electronics.  The same measurements, however, also highlight unanswered questions in physics today.  When confined to such skinny, one-dimensional wires, electrons behave so strangely that they hardly seem like electrons anymore.  Presently, carbon nanotubes represent the most promising of current microelectronic advances.  Single-walled nanotubes have a tensile strength of 45 billion pascals.  In comparison, steel alloys break at about 2 billion pascals.  They can also be bent at large angels and re-straightened without damage, while metals and carbon fibers fracture at grain boundaries (Collins 69).   

In time, nanotubes may yield not only smaller and better versions of existing devices, but also completely novel ones that wholly depend on quantum effects.  One example is the novel application of a nanostructured storage device.  Such a tiny electronic storage device could be smaller than a typical neuron yet store the amount of information equivalent to the entire Library of Congress (Freitas).  Scientists are already speculating that such an implanted storage device would revolutionize human intelligence.  I believe that even a moderate skeptic would propose learning much more about these properties of nanoscale mechanisms before we expect such a dramatic accomplishment.

Besides problems intrinsic to nanotechnology at the moment, there are major social issues involved.  Society will eventually be permeated with applications of nanotechnology ^__ first through computers, and then through miniaturized robots or devices that handle aspects of everyday life.  Theorists predict that a truly nanoscale switch could run at clock speeds of one tetra-hertz or more – 1,000 times as fast as processors available today (Collins 60).  It is now feasible to build a nanocircuit that has wires, switches, and memory elements made entirely from nanotubes and other molecules.  This kind of engineering may eventually yield not only tiny versions of conventional devices, but also new ones that exploit quantum effects.  With so many developments under way, it seems clear that it is no longer a question of whether nanotubes will become useful components of the electronic machines of the future.  The question is how and when.   

What nanotechnology will bring to science depends partly on how well scientists from different fields integrate their knowledge.  Chemists, physicists, biologists, and engineers alike currently partake in speculating possible applications for their own fields.  The technology, however, may not be available unless they successfully combine their efforts.  For example, both organic polymer synthesis and engineering must be integrated in the effort to build a nanorobot.  Engineers might think of ways to power such tiny devices, while organic chemists synthesize the proper structure that could store and use such energy.  And if the robot should be designed to work inside a human being, molecular biologists would have to make sure the body did not reject the device.

Information Technology

The Semiconductor Industry Association developed a roadmap for the enhancements in miniaturization, speed, and power consumption reduction of information processing devices.  The enhancements include sensors for signal acquisition, logic devices for processing, storage devices for memory, and displays for visualization.  However, the projection stops at 2010, and the smallest applications are 100 nm structures because properties of devices in the nanoscale regime are not yet known.  Furthermore, it would take 10-15 years for the science to develop into a marketable, economically manufactured technology (U.S. Government Printing Office 60).

Medicine & Health

Speculated applications include probes, a nanoscale approach to surgery, implanted drug synthesizers, and rapid genome sequencing.  However, the media gives most attention to the idea of nanodevices that repair the body at a microscopic level.  The increased exploratory capabilities through use of nanoprobes and tools should provide accurate models of the building block molecules of life.  The unique properties of carbohydrates, proteins, lipids and such will all be explored.  Advances of this knowledge, combined with tiny devices engineered to treat illness at the molecular level, will revolutionize medicine.  In addition, the use of increased processing speed and applied nanosurfaces may allow rapid sequencing of individual genomes, providing a revolutionary diagnostic tool.  A revolution in diagnostics and treatment would follow from all of these applications (IWGN 61).

Science and Discovery

          One new idea is the lab-on-a-chip.  This device would carry out experiments without the aid of human hands.  Scientists could leave them working overnight, saving much time and energy for other work.  In the future, complete robots could carry out experiments at the atomic level.  In addition, NASA is currently researching the development of nanosensors to inject into the body of astronauts to monitor cell behavior in the absence of gravity.  These sensors could also detect the presence of specific proteins or chemicals in medical research.

Implications and Risks of Self-Assembly

          The public has yet to respond enthusiastically to these possibilities.  Many writers and anti-technology organizations have already reacted to one major goal of nanotechnology.  The goal of self-replication strikes fear in the hearts of scientists and science-fiction writers alike.  Self-replication represents one of the essential qualities of life.  Without a doubt, the ability of a man-made device to pre-organize components and assemble more of its kind would revolutionize many fields.  In biology, for example, the ability to modify the machinery in living cells may come from self-replicating systems that run independently.

Scientists originally cast great doubt on the ability of man to create a biological system.  Recently, however, a team led by James Reggia, a computer scientist at the University of Maryland, demonstrated that "self-replication is not an inherently complex phenomenon but rather an emergent property arising from local interactions in systems that can be much simpler than is generally believed."  Reggia is working on extending the experiments of Chris Langton, who has shown how to build 86-cell, self-replicating, "Q-shaped sheathed loop" cellular automata.  Reggia believes that "the existence of these systems raises the question of whether contemporary techniques being developed by organic chemists studying autocatalytic systems, in which structural molecules function as templates for their own replication, could be used to realize self-replicating molecular structures patterned after the information processing occurring in unsheathed loops"(Crandall 42).  It seems the possibility of man-made life may be plausible. Should society fear self-assembly?  Drexler himself explored this feasible event:

“Nanodevices may become the next advance of the assembly line.  In order to build things from the bottom-up, from molecule to molecule, a team of these builders would efficiently replicate themselves whenever they were needed.  When the nanodevices worked together in mass, they could process an endless amount of information, communicate, and finally evolve their own intelligence through cooperation” (U.S. Government Printing Office 76).

This outcome is fantasy according to other scientists, however, because the limits of our knowledge prevent such complicated capabilities arising out of physical building blocks.  Richard Smalley explained his pessimism about self-replicating bacteria-sized robots: the number of catalysts required for such an event at the atomic level forces enormous complexity of the device.  In biological organism, chemically assembled structures need enzymes to arrange each step of assembly to facilitate accurate positioning of each atom (U.S. Gov. Printing Office 77).

Nonetheless, people will fear the ability of machines to self-replicate.  Perhaps the extent of their intelligence is exaggerated in fantasy, but the danger of exploitation is real.  After all, the public would have little control of such a marketable capability being traded into dangerous hands.  A dialogue should be maintained in the scientific community to increase awareness of possible exploitation of nanotechnology.  The discussion should also be used to augment something not often addressed in the scientific community: accountability for the discoveries and inventions of science.  Scientists often seem to claim immunity from manipulation of the discoveries that science provides ^__ understandably so because they lack the power to control the trade of knowledge.  The power in the scientists’ hands should not be judged solely on its ability to bring society models of nature, however.  Working knowledge and experience with these materials and theories should instead outfit the scientist with a sense of duty to educate policymakers and the public about the dangers he perceives with the possibilities of nanotechnology.  With the workings of self-replication at hand, it may be necessary to set guidelines. 

Future Impact on Society

          Undoubtedly, the U.S. plans to capitalize on the material fruits of nanotechnology.  Politically, it has also been a long-established goal of our country to remain at the forefront of science.  Thus, we should continue to see the efforts supported until marketable technologies are produced.  The public may also reap the benefits of investing in the nanotechnology market: personal use of new devices, increased microprocessor speeds, and advanced healthcare. 

A darker side to this exploitative science is that the tiny size and speed that the devices, as well as the possibility of reproduction, will likely cause fear in the public once these devices are presented.  Because the field is still relatively novel, a clear response is not yet obvious.  In the next decade, however, tremendous advance in this field should increase public awareness.  For now, the fear of applied nanotechnology is best captured in movie plots and runaway artificial intelligence fantasy.  All dangers are not ascribable to mere science fiction, however.  Scientists already speculate that the technology will impact warfare and weaponry.  The government is already funding research for nanosensors to inject into soldiers for defense against chemical warfare, for example.  In medicine, the technology enabling healthcare professionals to rapidly sequence an individual’s entire genome may necessitate legislature dictating the use of such information.  When research brings our capability to build such devices to the level of design, the public will surely show more interest. 

When the first commercial products of nanotechnology finally do permeate daily life, the public should guard itself against low standards of safety testing where it applies.  To avoid missing the effects of unnatural chemicals in the body, it is imperative that a government agency is assigned to monitoring the safety of bionanotechnology.  The process may be analogous to the FDA’s system of trials and testing for new food additives or drugs.  Benefits of nanotechnology in the computer industry, however, will lead to exciting new devices.  Filling a tiny space with enormous amounts of information will dramatically change the rate at which we obtain information, and the ease of obtaining it.  We may come to expect real-time news and communication from all over the world, with more information than the Library of Congress on a device as small as a human cell.  Could we implant such a chip?  Could people manipulate the nano-processes that occur in our cells to act differently, perhaps enhancing the expression of some genes, while quieting others?  These are issues we may deal with in the foreseeable future.  Like most other controversial discoveries, nanotechnology will probably have to demonstrate its potential before it draws a strong public response.

With so many avenues of expansion underway, we may be forced to accept many of the ill effects of nanotechnology in a trade-off for undeniable benefits.  For the moment, science itself has the most to gain from the exquisite ability to build anything from individual atoms.  The public will benefit mostly indirectly, through products using nanotech chips, wires, or manufacturing methods.  But science will eventually master a new dimension of exploration and discovery, and people will daily harness a new universe of small things.