It's not rocket science
by Jack Stilgoe
Yesterday took me to Nottingham for a debate on nanotechnology-"Radical science or plus se change?". Turns out, it's somewhere in between. The event was a showdown between the quiet voices of British reason (represented by Richard Jones and Saul Tendler) and the simulated braggadocio of the American molecular manufacturing movement.
Drawing on the dreams of Drexler (of "Gray goo" and desktop nanofactory fame), the Americans presented some animations showing the tiny insides of atom assemblers. The Brits took our nano aspirations back to biology, and explained how we should be trying to work with the idiosyncracies of the nanoscale rather than trying in vain to engineer around them.
This scientific discussion opened-up an interesting about public concern, who funds what and what Chinese scientists are likely to do about it. But it also prompted some highly technical talk. Josh Hall was asked to explain what was supposedly turning the wheels upon whose spokes atoms were being moved around his pretend atom factory. He repied that it was "an electric motor. It's not rocket science."
I know very little about the science, but it seems as though constructing all possible matter using atomic lego makes "rocket science" look like GCSE physics.
UPDATE... with apologies to those who've just passed GCSE physics. Richard Jones has also covered the debate on his blog.