Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!nanotech From: blowfish@triton.unm.edu (rON.) Newsgroups: sci.nanotech Subject: But are they safe? Keywords: mutations, control Message-ID: Date: 12 Mar 91 23:34:20 GMT Sender: nanotech@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque Lines: 73 Approved: nanotech@aramis.rutgers.edu Imagine a scene in the near future: A congressional committee room: Chairman: Sen. P.K. Barrell now has the floor. Sen. Barrell: Thank you, Mr. Chariman. Now, Mr. Fish, you say these little nanorobits... Me: Nanobots, sir. Sen Barrell: Er, ahm, yes, whatever, these little nanobots, will re-produce themselves in the process of creating a larger term object? Me: Yes, sir, that is essentially it. Sen. Barrell: Well, then, Mr. Fish, you also say that there is a mutation level connected with these nanobits, er nanobots. Me: Yes, sir. Sen. Barrell: Can you explain, please? Me: Yes- essentially, mutations are small changes in the structure, and sometimes performance of the units in question. Mutation is a necessary fact of life, Senator, even your own cells mutate. Sen. Barrell: Can these mutations be controlled? Me: Not really. The level can be increased with outside influences, but it can never be eliminated compleatly. Sen. Barrell: Then what you are saying, Mr. Fish, is that you have no control over what these things become? Me: Well, not exactly, sir, we can stop processes known to be mutated beyond useful applications. Sen. Barrell: So if a situation arises where you are unable to detect a change in the behavior of the nanobots, you would be unable to control them. Me: Mutations are a necessary part of the growth/evolution cycle. Sen. Barrell: Like cancer is, Mr. Fish? I'm sorry, but you have not convinced me that these nanobots are controllable, and what cannot be controlled cannot be considered safe. I am going to vote against continued funding of your nanotech research..... While the above sceanario might seem fanciful, anyone out there who has done any serious research knows how tenuous funding can be, and how deadly serious it is trying to convincepeople who do not understand the technology advances that the advances are indeed safe and useful. The whole thing brings up a few questions on the areas of mutation and safety: 1) Can nanotech technology, once started, be safely controlled, or is there a danger of the 'missing nanobots', sort of like hidden viruses, ready to flare up into life when the conditions exist right. (I know, viruses are non >self< replicating beasties, but there are examples of organisms that are self-replicating only under certain conditions) 2) Can a nanobot be designed to 'self-destruct' if it mutates beyond a certain set of parameters? And how do you gaurd against these parameters being mutated themselves? 3) Given that a nanobot bunch has the potential to evolve into a sort of self-awarness (the grey goo sceanario, I believe), can you come up with a plausible arguement that such a created 'life-form' is safe? Just look at the flack being received by the biologial engineering people over the creation of new strains of bacteria. And you want to possibly create a self-aware form of life? Sorry if these questions are a re-hash of old issues, but I've just started reading this group with some interest in the field, and these questions came to mind.... rON. (blowfish@triton.unm.edu!ariel.unm.edu) "It is only with the heart that one see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye." [Having nanotech research controlled by senators of the IQ you have depicted means it's sure to be screwed up. I hope a better way (such as idea futures) can be found. As has hopefully been explained in recent articles here, it is not terribly hard to design machines that just can't mutate in the commonly used sense of the word. Whether mutable nanobots will be built *on purpose* is another matter entirely. --JoSH]