Incredible? Maybe. Shrinking? No Way.

By | October 15, 2004
2 Comments

Wired Magazine ran a recent piece on K. Eric Drexler, whose relationship to
the field of nanotechnology is difficult to characterize — Dean? Founder?
— as The
Incredible Shrinking Man. There is no question that Drexler’s work has been
misrepresented and misunderstood, that the term "nanotechnology" has
been co-opted by others who then have the audacity to paint Drexler as some
kind of outsider or Pariah in the field, or that there is a strong movement
within both the business community and the ever-seeking-funding research community
to eliminate what Glenn Reynolds has described as the spooky
side nanotechnology. Drexler’s opponent in the Great
Assembler Debate, Dr. Richard Smalley, the Nobel laureate responsible for
the discovery of buckyballs, even went so far as to accuse Drexler of frightening
the children with his predictions of nano-weapons and grey goo. Spooky,
indeed.

It was therefore all the more exciting to see the news
that Dr. Peter Diamandis, the Chairman of the X PRIZE Foundation, is going to
head up the Foresight Institute’s Feynman Grand Prize Steering Committee. The
Foresight Institute is an organization
founded by Drexler to help prepare the world for the coming age of molecular
manufacturing. The institute annually awards Feynman
Prizes to major contributors in the field; the grand prize is a $250,000
cash award which will go to the first individual or team to construct a rudimentary
nano-scale computer and robotic arm. Diamandis’ presence on the committee for
the Feynman Grand Prize indicates that the goals of the Foresight Institute
are no more "fringe" than were those of the X Prize committee. While
the Nano Business Alliance continues
to insist that term "nanotechnology" applied only to stain
resistant pants and other vital breakthroughs, some researcher or team of
researchers is one day soon going to provide Drexler the ulitmate vindication,
and open up a new world even more strange and wonderful than the one promised
by the triumph of SpaceShipOne.

  • Karl Hallowell

    I have mixed feelings about this. The Foresight Institute under Drexler had frankly the feel of a religion though admittedly a religion that had a better chance than usual of delivering the promised goods. IMHO, we have to move beyond the charismatic leader stage of nanotech advocacy.

    But another side of Drexler is his broad interest in other technologies and ideas. For example, prediction markets (in particular, the Foresight Exchange) were encouraged by Drexler and associates. One example of this was a impromptu conference he had organized for discussing some theoretical details of what became the Defense Department’s Policy Analysis Market.

    As far as I’m concerned, he has a solid reputation even if I don’t drink the same brand of kool-aid. I have a similar respect for Smalley, though I think it’s a bad idea to attempt to prove something is “impossible” at this stage.

    That can’t be said for some of the new squatters in the recent nanotech gold rush. I sense there are a number of people looking to leech all meaning from this field (especially its buzzwords) for profit. Hence, the nanotech paints, pants, and other such things. They need to marginalize those who want to build actual technology and advances such as Drexler. That’s the way to control thought on the subject. Discredit rival authorities.

  • https://www.blog.speculist.com Phil Bowermaster

    Foresight is definitely an enthusiastic group, but I don’t know that I would describe the fervor as “religious.” And if Eric Drexler is charismatic, then I’m Brad Pitt. :-)