The impact of nanotechnology in the food industry has become more apparent over the last few years with the organization of various conferences dedicated to the topic, initiation of consortia for better and safe food, along with increased coverage in the media. Several companies which were hesitant about revealing their research programmes in nanofood, have now gone public announcing plans to improve existing products and develop new ones to maintain market dominance. The types of application include: smart packaging, on demand preservatives, and interactive foods. Building on the concept of “on-demand” food, the idea of interactive food is to allow consumers to modify food depending on their own nutritional needs or tastes. The concept is that thousands of nanocapsules containing flavour or colour enhancers, or added nutritional elements (such as vitamins), would remain dormant in the food and only be released when triggered by the consumer.24 Most of the food giants including Nestle, Kraft, Heinz, and Unilever support specific research programmes to capture a share of the nanofood market in the next decade.
The definition of nanofood is that nanotechnology techniques or tools are used during cultivation, production, processing, or packaging of the food. It does not mean atomically modified food or food produced by nanomachines. Although there are ambitious thoughts of creating molecular food using nanomachines, this is unrealistic in the foreseeable future.
Instead nanotechnologists are more optimistic about the potential to change the existing system of food processing and to ensure the safety of food products, creating a healthy food culture. They are also hopeful of enhancing the nutritional quality of food through selected additives and improvements to the way the body digests and absorbs food. Although some of these goals are further away, the food packaging industry already incorporates nanotechnology in products.
The use of pesticides increased in the second half of the 20th century with DDT becoming one of the most effective and widespread throughout the world. However, many of these pesticides, including DDT were later found to be highly toxic, affecting human and animal health and as a result whole ecosystems. As a consequence they were banned. To maintain crop yields, Integrated Pest Management systems, which mix traditional methods of crop rotation with biological pest control methods, are becoming popular and implemented in many countries, such as Tunisia and India.
In the future, nanoscale devices with novel properties could be used to make agricultural systems “smart”. For example, devices could be used to identify plant health issues before these become visible to the farmer. Such devices may be capable of responding to different situations by taking appropriate remedial action. If not, they will alert the farmer to the problem. In this way, smart devices will act as both a preventive and an early warning
system. Such devices could be used to deliver chemicals in a controlled and targeted manner in the same way as nanomedicine has implications for drug delivery in humans. Nanomedicine developments are now beginning to allow us to treat different diseases such as cancer in animals with high precision, and targeted delivery (to specific tissues and organs) has become highly successful.
Technologies such as encapsulation and controlled release methods, have revolutionised the use of pesticides and herbicides. Many companies make formulations which contain nanoparticles within the 100-250 nm size range that are able to dissolve in water more effectively than existing ones (thus increasing their activity). Other companies employ suspensions of nanoscale particles (nanoemulsions), which can be either water or oil-based and contain uniform suspensions of pesticidal or herbicidal nanoparticles in the range of 200- 400 nm. These can be easily incorporated in various media such as gels, creams, liquids etc, and have multiple applications for preventative measures, treatment or preservation of the harvested product.
One of the world’s largest agrochemical corporations, Syngenta, is using nanoemulsions in its pesticide products. One of its successful growth regulating products is the Primo MAXX plant growth regulator, which if applied prior to the onset of stress such as heat, drought, disease or traffic can strengthen the physical structure of turfgrass, and allow it to withstand ongoing stresses throughout the growing season. Another encapsulated product from Syngenta delivers a broad control spectrum on primary and secondary insect pests of cotton, rice, peanuts and soybeans. Marketed under the name Karate® ZEON this is a quick release microencapsulated product containing the active compound lambda-cyhalothrin (a synthetic insecticide based on the structure of natural pyrethrins) which breaks open on contact with leaves. In contrast, the encapsulated product “gutbuster” only breaks open to release its contents when it comes into contact with alkaline environments, such as the stomach of certain insects.
In other areas, scientists are working on various technologies to make fertiliser and pesticide delivery systems which can respond to environmental changes. The ultimate aim is to tailor these products in such a way that they will release their cargo in a controlled manner (slowly or quickly) in response to different signals e.g. magnetic fields, heat, ultrasound, moisture, etc.
New research also aims to make plants use water, pesticides and fertilizers more efficiently, to reduce pollution and to make agriculture more environmentally friendly. Smaller companies are forming alliances with major players such as LG, BASF, Honeywell, Bayer, Mitsubishi, and DuPont to make complete plant health monitoring systems in the next 10 years using nanotechnologies.
Other Developments in the Agricultural Sector due to Nanotechnology
Agriculture is the backbone of most developing countries, with more than 60% of the population reliant on it for their livelihood. As well as developing improved systems for monitoring environmental conditions and delivering nutrients or pesticides as appropriate, nanotechnology can improve our understanding of the biology of different crops and thus potentially enhance yields or nutritional values. In addition, it can offer routes to added value crops or environmental remediation.
Particle farming is one such example, which yields nanoparticles for industrial use by growing plants in defined soils. For example, research has shown that alfalfa plants grown in gold rich soil, absorb gold nanoparticles through their roots and accumulate these in their tissues. The gold nanoparticles can be mechanically separated from the plant tissue following harvest.
Nanotechnology can also be used to clean ground water. The US company Argonide is using 2 nm diameter aluminium oxide nanofibres (NanoCeram) as a water purifier. Filters made from these fibres can remove viruses, bacteria and protozoan cysts from water. Similar projects are taking place elsewhere, particularly in developing countries such as India and South Africa. The German chemical group BASF’s future business fund has devoted a significant proportion of its 105 million USD nanotechnology research fund to water purification techniques. The French utility company Generale des Eaux has also developed its own Nanofiltration technology in collaboration with the Dow Chemical subsidiary Filmtec. Ondeo, the water unit of French conglomerate Suez, has meanwhile installed what it calls an ultrafiltration system, with holes of 0.1 microns in size, in one of its plants outside Paris.
While some companies are working on water filtration, others such as Altairnano are following a purification approach. Altairnano’s Nanocheck contains lanthanum nanoparticles that absorb phosphates from aqueous environments. Applying these in ponds and swimming pools effectively removes available phosphates and as a result prevents the growth of algae. The company expects this product to benefit commercial fish ponds which
spend huge amounts of money to remove algae.
Research at LehighUniversity in the US shows that an ultrafine, nanoscale powder made from iron can be used as an effective tool for cleaning up contaminated soil and groundwater- a trillion-dollar problem that encompasses more than 1000 still-untreated Superfund sites (uncontrolled or abandoned places where hazardous waste is located) in the United States, some 150,000 underground storage tank releases, and a huge number of landfills, abandoned mines, and industrial sites.
The iron nanoparticles catalyse the oxidation and breakdown of organic contaminants such as trichloroethene, carbon tetrachloride, dioxins, and PCBs to simpler carbon compounds which are much less toxic. This could pave the way for a nano-aquaculture, which would be beneficial for a large number of farmers across the world. Other research at the Centre for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology (CBEN) has shown that nanoscale iron oxide particles are extremely effective at binding and removing arsenic from groundwater (something which affects the water supply of millions of people in the developing world, and for which there is
Precision farming has been a long-desired goal to maximise output (i.e. crop yields) while minimising input (i.e. fertilisers, pesticides, herbicides, etc) through monitoring environmental variables and applying targeted action. Precision farming makes use of computers, global satellite positioning systems, and remote sensing devices to measure highly localised environmental conditions thus determining whether crops are growing at maximum efficiency or precisely identifying the nature and location of problems. By using centralised data to determine soil conditions and plant development, seeding, fertilizer, chemical and water use can be fine-tuned to lower production costs and potentially increase production- all benefiting the farmer.8 Precision farming can also help to reduce agricultural waste and thus keep environmental pollution to a minimum. Although not fully implemented yet, tiny sensors and monitoring systems enabled by nanotechnology will have a large impact on future precision farming methodologies.
One of the major roles for nanotechnology-enabled devices will be the increased use of autonomous sensors linked into a GPS system for real-time monitoring. These nanosensors could be distributed throughout the field where they can monitor soil conditions and crop growth. Wireless sensors are already being used in certain parts of the USA and Australia.
For example, one of the Californian vineyards, Pickberry, in Sonoma County has installed wifi systems with the help of the IT company, Accenture.9 The initial cost of setting up such a system is justified by the fact that it enables the best grapes to be grown which in turn produce finer wines, which command a premium price. The use of such wireless networks is of course not restricted to vineyards, for example Forbes Magazine has reported that small nanosensors are being used by Honeywell (a technology R&D company with global branches) to monitor grocery stores in Minnesota.10 This technology enables shop keepers to identify food items which have passed their expiry date and also reminds them to issue a new purchase order.
The union of biotechnology and nanotechnology in sensors will create equipment of increased sensitivity, allowing an earlier response to environmental changes. For example:
* Nanosensors utilising carbon nanotubes12 or nano-cantilevers13 are small enough to trap and measure individual proteins or even small molecules.
*Nanoparticles or nanosurfaces can be engineered to trigger an electrical or chemical signal in the presence of a contaminant such as bacteria.
* Other nanosensors work by triggering an enzymatic reaction or by using nanoengineered branching molecules called dendrimers as probes to bind to target chemicals and proteins. Ultimately, precision farming, with the help of smart sensors, will allow enhanced productivity in agriculture by providing accurate information, thus helping farmers to make better decisions.
The EU’s vision is of a “knowledge-based economy” and as part of this, it plans to maximise the potential of biotechnology for the benefit of EU economy, society and the environment. There are new challenges in this sector including a growing demand for healthy, safe food; an increasing risk of disease; and threats to agricultural and fishery production from changing weather patterns. However, creating a bio economy is a challenging and complex process involving the convergence of different branches of science.
Nanotechnology has the potential to revolutionize the agricultural and food industry with new tools for the molecular treatment of diseases, rapid disease detection, enhancing the ability of plants to absorb nutrients etc. Smart sensors and smart delivery systems will help the agricultural industry combat viruses and other crop pathogens. In the near future nanostructured catalysts will be available which will increase the efficiency of pesticides and herbicides, allowing lower doses to be used. Nanotechnology will also protect the environment indirectly through the use of alternative (renewable) energy supplies, and filters or catalysts to reduce pollution and clean-up existing pollutants.
An agricultural methodology widely used in the USA, Europe and Japan, which efficiently utilises modern technology for crop management, is called Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA). CEA is an advanced and intensive form of hydroponically-based agriculture. Plants are grown within a controlled environment so that horticultural practices can be optimized. The computerized system monitors and regulates localised environments such as fields of crops. CEA technology, as it exists today, provides an excellent platform for the introduction of nanotechnology to agriculture. With many of the monitoring and control systems already in place, nanotechnological devices for CEA that provide “scouting” capabilities could tremendously improve the grower’s ability to determine the best time of harvest for the crop, the vitality of the crop, and food security issues, such as microbial or chemical contamination.
Nanotechnology has been described as the new industrial revolution and both developed and developing countries are investing in this technology to secure a market share. At present the USA leads with a 4 year, 3.7 billion USD investment through its National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). The USA is followed by Japan and the European Union, which have both committed substantial funds (750 million and 1.2 billion, including individual country contributions, respectively per year).3 The level of funding in developing countries may be comparatively lower, however this has not lessened the impact of some countries on the global stage. For example, China's share of academic publications in nanoscale science and engineering topics rose from 7.5% in 1995 to 18.3% in 2004, taking the country from fifth to second in the world.Others such as India, South Korea, Iran, and Thailand are also catching up with a focus on applications specific to the economic growth and needs of their countries. Iran for example has a focused programme in nanotechnology for the agricultural and food industry. A recent study from the Helmuth Kaiser Consultancy predicts that the nanofood market will surge from 2.6 billion USD to 20.4 billion USD by 2010 (see Figure below).5 The report suggests that with more than 50% of the world population, the largest market for Nanofood in 2010 will be Asia lead by China.
More than 400 companies around the world today are active in nanotechnology research and development (R&D) and this number is expected to increase to more than 1000 within the next 10 years. In terms of numbers, the USA leads, followed by Japan, China, and the EU.
An estimate by the Business Communications Company, a technical market research and industry analysis company shows that, the market for the nanotechnology was 7.6 billion USD in 2003 and is expected to be 1 trillion USD in 2011.6 However, the full potential of nanotechnology in the agricultural and food industry has still not been realised.
Nanotechnology is the manipulation or self-assembly of individual atoms, molecules, or molecular clusters into structures to create materials and devices with new or vastly different properties. Nanotechnology can work from the top down (which means reducing the size of the smallest structures to the nanoscale e.g. photonics applications in nanoelectronics and nanoengineering) or the bottom up (which involves manipulating individual atoms and molecules into nanostructures and more closely resembles chemistry or biology).
The definition of nanotechnology is based on the prefix “nano” which is from the Greek word meaning “dwarf”. In more technical terms, the word “nano” means 10-9, or one billionth of something. For comparison, a virus is roughly 100 nanometres (nm) in size. The word nanotechnology is generally used when referring to materials with the size of 0.1 to 100 nanometres, however it is also inherent that these materials should display different properties from bulk (or micrometric and larger) materials as a result of their size. These differences include physical strength, chemical reactivity, electrical conductance, magnetism, and optical effects.
The current global population is nearly 6 billion with 50% living in Asia. A large proportion of those living in developing countries face daily food shortages as a result of environmental impacts or political instability, while in the developed world there is a food surplus. For developing countries the drive is to develop drought and pest resistant crops, which also maximize yield. In developed countries, the food industry is driven by consumer demand which is currently for fresher and healthier foodstuffs. This is big business, for example the food industry in the UK is booming with an annual growth rate of 5.2%1 and the demand for fresh food has increased by 10% in the last few years.
The potential of nanotechnology to revolutionise the health care, textile, materials. information and communication technology, and energy sectors has been well-publicised. In fact several products enabled by nanotechnology are already in the market, such as antibacterial dressings, transparent sunscreen lotions, stain-resistant fabrics, scratch free paints for cars, and self cleaning windows. The application of nanotechnology to the agricultural and food industries was first addressed by a United States Department of Agriculture roadmap published in September 2003.2 The prediction is that nanotechnology will transform the entire food industry, changing the way food is produced, processed, packaged, transported, and consumed. This short report will review the key aspects of these transformations, highlighting current research in the agrifood industry and what future impacts these may have.
WASHINGTON Thanks to nanotechnology, tomorrow’s food will be designed by shaping molecules and atoms. Food will be wrapped in “smart” safety packaging that can detect spoilage or harmful contaminants. Future products will enhance and adjust their color, flavor, or nutrient content to accommodate each consumer’s taste or health needs. And in agriculture, nanotechnology promises to reduce pesticide use, improve plant and animal breeding, and create new nano-bioindustrial products.
The Helmut Kaiser Consultancy estimates that the nanotech food market is growing rapidly and will reach over $20 billion by 2010 about three times its current size. A recent study by Cientifica found over 150 nanotechnology applications in the food industry at present, with some of the world’s biggest companies like Altria, Nestle, Kraft, Heinz and Unilever involved in nanotechnology research and development.
The U.S. government is investing in nanotech agrifood as a part of its annual $1.2 billion nanotechnology research budget. A new report, Nanotechnology in Agriculture and Food Production: Anticipated Applications, for the first time analyzes the publicly available data on federally funded research projects in agrifood nanotechnology, supplemented with data from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Written by Jennifer Kuzma and Peter VerHage from the University of Minnesota’s Center for Science, Technology, and Public Policy, the report estimates possible areas and timeframes for future nanotechnology-based food and agriculture applications. It takes an early look at potential benefits and risks, and it explores possible areas and needs for environmental, health and safety oversight.
Today’s nanotech food products include a new variety of canola oil containing tiny materials that can block cholesterol from entering the bloodstream, and a chocolate milkshake that supposedly tastes better and is more nutritious than conventional shakes thanks to the unusual properties of a new ingredient that is 100,000 smaller than a grain of sand. Nanoscale droplets of a new substance have been added to pesticides so that formulations that once had to be shaken every two hours to prevent ingredients from separating now hold together for up to one year. “The number of nanotechnology food products currently being sold appears to be relatively small,” said David Rejeski, director of the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, which supported this study. “But with millions of dollars being spent globally by both government and industry to apply nanotechnologies in areas such as food processing, food safety and packaging, and agricultural production, it is the right time to start asking a number of related questions: What nano-engineered food products will appear on the market over the next year or two? What are the potential benefits and risks? Who will be affected? And how can consumers become engaged early on?”
“The goal of this report is to look upstream in order to develop an early understanding about what is on the nano agrifood horizon,” said Dr. Kuzma. “In its current form, the report and data only scratches the surface of potential applications. Nonetheless, it is sufficiently informative to serve as a starting point for a more in-depth dialogue among consumers, business, and government about the near-and long-term uses of and safeguards for nanotechnology in food and agriculture. Particularly, it provides an early guidepost to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Environmental Protection Agency, and Food & Drug Administration.” “If nanotechnology is to succeed, we must have an open policy discussion that is informed by a clear understanding of how products are moving from laboratories and farms to factories and stores, and into people’s kitchens and environment. The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies is committed to helping facilitate the necessary analysis and risk research around nanotechnology agrifood to provide practical and sound policy choices,” according to Project Director Rejeski. The Project is an initiative of the Woodrow Wilson Center and The Pew Charitable Trusts.
Nanotechnology is the ability to measure, see, manipulate and manufacture things usually between 1 and 100 nanometers. A nanometer is one billionth of a meter; a human hair is roughly 100,000 nanometers wide. The National Science Foundation predicts that the global market for goods and services using nanotechnologies will grow to $1 trillion by 2015. The U.S. invests approximately $3 billion annually in nanotechnology research and development, which accounts for approximately one-third of the total public and private sector investments worldwide.
Nanotechnology offers the ability to build large numbers of products that are incredibly powerful by today's standards. Possibility This creates both opportunity and risk. The problem of minimizing the risk is not simple; excessive restriction creates black markets, Which in this context implies unrestricted Nanofabrication. Selecting the proper level of restriction is likely to pose a difficult challenge.
This paper describes a system that the risk Full Version to Be Dealt with on two separate fronts: control of the molecular manufacturing capacity, and control of the products. Such a system has many advantages. A well-controlled manufacturing system can be widely deployed, Allowing distributed, cheap, high-volume manufacturing of useful products and even a degree of distributed innovation. The range of possible nanotechnology-built products is almost infinite. Even if allowable products were restricted to a small subset of possible designs, it would still allow an explosion of creativity and functionality.
Preventing staff from building Nanofactory unapproved products can be done using technologies already in use today. It appears that the Nanofactory control structure can be made virtually unbreakable. Product approval, by contrast, depends to some extent on human institutions. With a block-based design system, many products can be assessed for degree of danger without the need for human intervention, this reduces subjectivity and delay, and Full Version people to focus on the few truly risky designs.
In addition to preventing the creation of unrestricted molecular manufacturing devices, further regulation will be necessary to preserve the interests of existing commercial and military institutions. For example, the effects of networked computers on intellectual property rights have created concern in several industries15, and the ability to fabricate anything will surely increase the problem. National security will demand limits on the weapons that can be produced.
Forthcoming papers will give recommendations for a multi-purpose system of administration that preserves commercial rights and security imperatives, while still Allowing humanitarian and innovative use.
Rapid innovation is a key benefit of nanotechnology. The rapid and flexible manufacturing process to design Full Version to be built and tested almost immediately. Because designers of nano-built products do not have to do any current nanotechnology research, a high level of innovation can be accommodated without giving designers access to any dangerous kinds of products. As mentioned above, a design with billion-atom, sub-micron blocks, permitting specification of near-biological levels of complexity, would still pose no risk of illicit self-replication. The minimum building block size in a design could be restricted by the design system. A fully automated evaluation and approval process could also consider the energy and power contained in the design, its mechanical integrity, and the amount of computer power built in. The block-based design system provides a simple interface to the block-based convergent assembly system. A variety of design systems could be implemented using the same Nanofactory hardware, and the designer would not have to become an expert on the process of construction to create buildable designs.
With a safe-design Nanofactory staff, adults-and even children-could safely play with advanced robotics, inventing and Constructing almost anything they could imagine. (Today, adults as well as children find it worthwhile to play with the Lego Mindstorms ™ system14.) More powerful products would require an engineering certification. This could be given to any responsible adult, since even a malicious product engineer would be unable to bypass the factory's programming and cause it to make illicit fabricators. A product that included chemical manipulation or Nanomechanical ability would have to be carefully controlled, even during the design phase, to Prevent the designer from building something that could be used for illicit nanomanufacturing.
Risks and dangers associated with products could be assessed on a per-product basis. Many products, produced with simplified design kits, could be approved with only automated analysis of their design. Most others could be approved after a safety and efficacy assessment similar to today's approval processes. Only rarely would a new degree of nanotechnological functionality be required, so each case could be carefully assessed before the functionality was added to appropriately restricted design programs.
Product approval for worldwide availability could depend on any of several factors. First, unless designed with a child-safe design program, it could be evaluated for engineering safety. Second, if the design incorporated intellectual property, the owner of the property could specify licensing terms. Third, local jurisdictional restrictions could be imposed, tagging the file according to where it could and could not be manufactured. Finally, the design would be places in the global catalog, available for anyone to use.
A personal safe Nanofactory approved design must build products, while refusing to build unapproved products. It must also be extremely tamper-resistant; if anyone found a way to build unapproved products, they could make an unrestricted, Nanofactory unsafe, and distribute copies of it. The product approval process must also be carefully designed, to maximize the benefits of the technology while minimizing the risk of misuse. Restricted nanofactories avoid the extreme risk / benefit tradeoff of other nanotechnology administration plans, but they do require competent administration.
One way to secure a personal Nanofactory is to build in only a limited number of safe designs. The user could ask it to produce any one of those designs, but with no way to feed in more blueprints, the factory could never build anything else. This simple scheme is fairly reliable, but not very useful. It also poses the risk that someone could take apart the factory and find a way to reprogram its design library.
A more useful and secure scheme would be to connect the PN to a central controller, and require it to ask for permission each time it was asked to manufacture something. This would allow new designs to be added to the design after the Nanofactory library was built. In addition, the PN would have to report its status back to the central controller. The system could even be designed to require a continuous connection; a factory disconnected from the network would permanently disable itself.
This would greatly reduce the opportunity to take the factory apart, since it could report the attempt in real time, and failed attempts would result in immediate arrest of the perpetrator. This permanent connection would also allow the factory to be disabled remotely if a security flaw were ever discovered in that model. Finally, a physical connection would allow the location of the factory to be known, and jurisdictional limits to be imposed on its products.
Current cryptographic techniques permit verification and encryption of communication over an unsecured link. These are used in smart cards and digital cellular phones, and will soon be used in digital rights management13. Using such techniques, each Nanofactory staff would be able to verify that it was in communication with the central library. Only designs from the library could be manufactured. In addition, each design could come with a set of restrictions. For example, medical tools might only be manufactured at the request of a doctor. Commercial designs could require payment from a user. Designs under development could be manufactured only by the inventor, until they were approved and released. A design that did not come from the central library would not have the proper cryptographic signature, and the factory would simply refuse to build it.
It is generally assumed, incorrectly, that devices built with nanotechnology must be quite small. This has led to fears that molecular manufacturing systems will be hard to control and easy to steal. In fact, as analyzed by Drexler and others in the field, the products of nanoscale mechanochemical plants can be attached together within the enclosure of a single device. Small building blocks can be joined to make bigger blocks, these blocks can be joined with others, and so on to form a product. This process is called convergent assembly, and it Full Version the creation of large products from nanoscale parts. In particular, convergent assembly will allow one to build another Nanofactory Nanofactory. There is no need to use trillions of free-floating robots assembler, instead, the assemblers, fabricators now called-are securely fastened inside the device factory, where they feed the smallest conveyor belts.
A typical personal Nanofactory (PN) might be the size of a microwave oven. Since the fabricators are fastened into the factory and dependent on its power grid, they have no need to navigate around the product they are building-this improves efficiency, and they have no chance of functioning independently. In addition, the entire Nanofactory can be controlled through a single interface, Full Version Which restrictions to be built into the interface. It can simply refuse to produce any product that has not been approved. (The improved security of tethered nanotechnology factories has been a theme in at least one work of science fiction12.)
If a PN will only build safe products, and will refuse to build any product that has not been approved as safe, then the factory itself can be considered safe. It could even build a duplicate PN on request. With the restrictions built in, the second one would be as safe as the first. As long as the restrictions work as planned, there is no risk of gray goo, no risk of undesirable weapons or unapproved products, and no risk of producing unrestricted nanofactories that could be used to make bad products.
At the same time, products that were approved could be produced in any quantity desired. The products could even be customized, within limits-and the limits could be quite broad, for some kinds of products. If desired, the PNs (and the products) could have tracking devices built in to further deter inappropriate use. With staff that can only occur nanofactories approved designs, the safety of molecular manufacturing does not depend on Restricting the Use of the factories. Instead, it depends on choosing correctly Which products to approve. The Nanofactory itself, as a product, can be approved for unlimited copying. This means that the abundant, cheap, and convenient production capability of advanced nanotechnology can not be achieved without the risks associated with uncontrolled molecular manufacturing. A two-dimensional view of the risks of nanotechnology, Which separates the means of production from the products, Full Version the design and implementation of policy that is minimally restrictive, yet still safe.
The technology at the heart of this dilemma is molecular manufacturing. A machine capable of molecular manufacturing, nanoscale Whether or Macroscale-has two possible functions: to create more manufacturing capacity by duplicating itself, and to manufacture products. Most products created by molecular manufacturing will not Possess any capacity for self-duplication, or indeed for manufacturing of any kind, as a result, each product can be evaluated on its own merits, without worrying about special risks. A nanotechnology-based manufacturing system, on the other hand, could build weapons, gray goo, or anything else it was programmed to produce. The solution, then, is to regulate nanofactories; products are far less dangerous. A nanotechnology-built car could not turn into gray goo more than a steel-and-plastic car could.
Some products, however, will be powerful enough to require restriction. Weapons built by nanotechnology would be far more effective than today's versions. Very small products could get lost and cause nano-litter, or undetectably be used to spy on people. And a product that included a general molecular manufacturing capability would be, effectively, an unregulated Nanofactory-horrifyingly dangerous in the wrong hands. Any widespread use of nanotechnology manufacturing must include the ability to restrict, somehow, the range of products that can be produced. If it can be done safely, widespread use of molecular manufacturing looks like a very good idea for the following reasons:
The ability to produce duplicate manufacturing systems means that manufacturing capacity could be doubled almost for free.
A single, self-contained, clean-running Nanofactory staff could produce a vast range of strong, efficient, carbon-based products as they are needed.
Emergency and humanitarian aid could be supplied quickly and cheaply.
Many of the environmental pressures caused by our current technology base could be Mitigated or removed entirely.
The rapid and flexible manufacturing cycle will allow many innovations to be developed rapidly. Although a complete survey and explanation of the potential benefits of nanotechnology is beyond the scope of this paper, it seems clear that the technology has a lot to offer.
All of these advantages should be delivered as far as is consistent with minimizing risks. Humanitarian imperatives and opportunities for profit both demand extensive use of nanotechnology. In addition, failure to use nanotechnology will create a pent-up demand for its advantages, Which will virtually guarantee an uncontrollable black market. Once molecular manufacturing has been developed, a second, independent development project would be both far easier and far more dangerous than the original project. The first Nanofactory must be made available for widespread use to reduce the impetus for independent development11.
Development of nanotechnology must be Undertaken with care to avoid accidents; once a nanotechnology-based manufacturing technology is created, it must be administered with even more care. Irresponsible use of molecular manufacturing could lead to black markets, unstable arms races ending in immense destruction, and possibly a release of gray goo. Misuse of the technology by inhumane governments, terrorists, criminals, and irresponsible users could produce even worse problems-gray goo is a feeble weapon compared to what could be designed. It seems likely that research leading to advanced nanotechnology will have to be carefully monitored and controlled. However, the same is not true of product research and development. The developer of nanotechnology-built products does not need technical expertise in nanotechnology. Once a manufacturing system is developed, product designers can use it to build anything from cars to computers, simply by reusing low-level designs that have previously been developed. A designer may safely be allowed to play with pieces 1.000 atoms on a side (one billion atoms in volume). This is several times smaller than a bacterium and 10,000,000 times smaller than a car.
Working with modular "building blocks" of this size would allow almost anything to be designed and built, but the blocks would be too big to do the kind of molecular manipulation that is necessary for nano-manufacturing or to participate in biochemical reactions. A single block could contain a tiny motor or a computer, Allowing products to be powered and responsive. As long as block contained no machinery to do mechanochemistry, the designer could not create a new kind of Nanofactory.
Once designed and built, a product of molecular manufacturing could be used by consumers just like a steel or plastic product. Of course, some products, such as cars, knives, and nail guns, are dangerous by design, but this kind of danger is one that we already know how to deal with. In the United States, Underwriter's Laboratories (UL), the Food and Drug Administration, and a host of industry and consumer organizations work To ensure that our products are as safe as we expect them to be. Nanotechnology products could be regulated in the same way. And if Nanofactory staff could only make approved products, it could be widely distributed, even for home use, without introducing any special risks.
Many words have been written about the dangers of advanced nanotechnology. Most of the threatening scenarios Involve tiny manufacturing systems that run amok, or are used to create destructive products. A manufacturing infrastructure built around a centrally controlled, relatively large, self-contained manufacturing system would avoid these problems. A controlled Nanofactory would pose no inherent danger, and it could be deployed and used widely. Cheap, clean, convenient, on-site manufacturing would be possible without the risks associated with uncontrolled nanotech fabrication or excessive regulation. Control of the products could be administered by a central authority; intellectual property rights could be respected. In addition, restricted design software could allow unrestricted innovation while limiting the capabilities of the final products. The proposed solution appears to preserve the benefits of advanced nanotechnology while minimizing the most serious risks.
Advanced Nanotechnology and Its Risks
As early as 1959, Richard Feynman proposed building devices with each atom precisely placed1. In 1986, Eric Drexler published an influential book, Engines of Creation2, In which I described some of the benefits and risks of such a capability. If molecules and devices can be manufactured by joining individual atoms under computer control, it will be possible to build structures out of diamond, 100 times as strong as steel, to build computers smaller than a bacterium, and to build assemblers and mini-factories of various sizes, capable of making complex products and even of duplicating themselves.
Drexler's subsequent book, Nanosystems3, remarkable substantiate these claims, and added still more. A self-contained tabletop factory could produce its duplicate in one hour. Devices with moving parts could be incredibly efficient. Molecular manufacturing operations could be Carried out with failure rates less than one in a quadrillion. A computer would require a miniscule fraction of a watt and one trillion of them could fit into a cubic centimeter. Nanotechnology-built fractal plumbing would be able to cool the resulting 10,000 watts of waste heat. It seems clear that if advanced nanotechnology is ever developed, its products will be incredibly powerful.
As soon as molecular manufacturing was proposed, risks associated with it began to be identified. Engines of one hazard described Creation2 now considered unlikely, but still possible: gray goo. A small nanomachines capable of replication itself could in theory copy too many times4. If it were capable of surviving outdoors, and of using biomass as raw material, it could severely damage the environment5. Others have analyzed the likelihood of an unstable race6 arms, and many have suggested economic upheaval Resulting from the widespread use of free manufacturing7. Some have even suggested that the entire basis of the economy would change, and money would become obsolete8.
Sufficiently powerful malevolent products would allow people, either governments hostile or angry individuals, to wreak havoc. Destructive nanomachines could do immense damage to unprotected people and objects. If the wrong people gained the ability to manufacture any desired product, they could rule the world, or cause massive destruction in the attempt9. Certain products, such as vast surveillance networks, aerospace powerful weapons, and microscopic antipersonnel devices, provide special cause for concern. Gray goo is relevant here as well: an effective means of sabotage would be to release a hard-to-detect robot that continued to manufacture copies of itself by destroying its surroundings.
Clearly, the unrestricted availability of advanced nanotechnology poses serious risks, Which may well outweighed the benefits of clean, cheap, convenient, self-contained manufacturing. As analyzed in Forward to the Future: Nanotechnology and Regulatory Policy10, some restriction is likely to be necessary. However, as was also pointed out in that study, an excess of restriction will enable the same problems by Increasing the incentive for covert development of advanced nanotechnology. That paper considered regulation on a one-dimensional spectrum, from full Relinquishment to complete lack of restriction. As will be shown below, a two-dimensional understanding of the problem taking into account both control of nanotech manufacturing capability and control of its products targeted Full Version restrictions to be applied, minimizing the most serious risks while preserving the potential benefits.
Molecular nanotechnology has been defined as the three-dimensional positional control of molecular structure to create materials and devices to molecular precision. The human body is Comprised of molecules, hence the availability of molecular nanotechnology will permit dramatic progress in human medical services. More than just an extension of "molecular medicine," nanomedicine will employ molecular machine systems to address medical problems, and will use molecular knowledge to maintain and Improve human health at the molecular scale. Nanomedicine will have extraordinary and far-reaching implications for the medical profession, for the definition of disease, for the diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions including aging, and Ultimately for the improvement and extension of natural human biological structure and function.
"Nanomedicine is the preservation and improvement of human health using molecular tools and molecular knowledge of the human body."
The proposed compact Nanofactory is a molecular manufacturing system, possibly small enough to sit on a desktop, that could build a diverse selection of large-scale molecularly precise diamond products. The Nanofactory is potentially a high quality, extremely low cost, and very flexible manufacturing system.
The main input to the diamond feedstock Nanofactory is simple hydrocarbon molecules such as natural gas, propane, or acetylene. Small supplemental amounts of a few other simple molecules containing atoms of chemical trace elements such as oxygen, nitrogen or silicon may also be required.
The Nanofactory must be provided with electrical power and a means for cooling the working unit. The main output of the first commercial will be Nanofactory Macroscale Quantities of molecularly precise diamond products. These products may include nanocomputers, medical nanorobots, products having diverse aerospace and defense applications, devices for cheap energy production and environmental remediation, and a cornucopia of new and improved consumer products. Earlier-generation research nanofactories will produce substantially less complex products but Will Provide an evolutionary pathway leading from the first simple DMS commercial workstations to more mature systems.
The Nanofactory is a molecular manufacturing system employing controlled molecular assembly that will make possible the creation of fundamentally novel products having the intricate complexity currently found only in biological systems, but operating with greater speed, power, reliability, and, most importantly, entirely under human control. Molecular manufacturing has the potential to be extremely clean, efficient, and inexpensive.
Our Nanofactory diamond will be constructed from components of the same sort that it can manufacture itself. While molecular manufacturing systems made from DNA, other biopolymers, or even biological organisms are possible, such systems would be unable to build products that approach the remarkable strength, stiffness, temperature range, lightness, electrical, optical and other properties that can Achieved with diamond materials.
The long-term goal of the Nanofactory Collaboration is to design, and Ultimately to build, a working diamond Nanofactory.
"The killer app for digital fabrication is personal fabrication - things you can not buy at Walmart. What if, instead of sending energy, computation, and so on. around the world, we sent the means to create it? As regular objects become computerized and interconnected at a smaller and smaller scale, we're approaching the nano-scale of biological systems. We're on the cusp of a fabrication revolution. "
The neat, clear vision of nanotechnology we had in 1989 rested on two key aspects that would make it a transformative, rather than Merely an evolutionary, technology:
• The ability to construct and observe at the atomic scale, and the construction of machines at that scale, taking advantage of various phenomena
• These machines could be production machinery for more machines, shortening times capital formation rates and Increasing Economic Growth
The reality of nanotechnology is shaping up differently from the neat visions of those times, but it is shaping up. There is substantial coverage of the first point today: the techniques for manipulating and observing at the molecular scale are well advanced over 1989. There are things that machines are arguably as well: by some definitions, the last two generations of computer processors have been flat-out nanotechnology. On the atomically precise front, Which is closer to what we think really makes a difference as far as nanotechnology is concerned, an Increasing proportion of work Involves nanostructures with electronic or catalytic properties that perform useful functions.
On the second point there remains an odd dichotomy. Researchers working from the direction of Biosystems Autogenous understand and use the properties of biomolecular components (eg polymerases) and use them as a matter of course. Those coming from the chemistry / surface physics directorate, however, do seem to have picked up on it, or at least have not managed to make the right tools yet.
The bottom line is that 20 years on, the world has picked up strongly on one of the main legs of the nanotech vision, working at atomic scale and precision. The other one, Autogenous systems, has been sorely neglected.
In some sense, the two legs of the nanotech vision are the same two properties of living things that make life so different from non-living ones: they have mechanism that is atomically precise and works on that scale, and they reproduce themselves. Besides life, Autogenous systems in the real world range from the simple physical models of machine shops that make parts for shop machines, to the Memetic ecosystem of ideas that is science itself. Questions that seem like mere technical details, such as growth rates and feedstock closure, turn out to be crucial in understanding major effects ranging from The possibility of gray goo to the prospect of economic displacement. A better understanding of autogeny in software is likely to give us more robust systems and ultimately, true artificial intelligence, since the mind is clearly Autogenous learning.
Foresight was a thought leader in 1989 because we had a vision that allowed us to see future possibilities, opportunities and dangers alike, in ways that were not generally apprehended. That is still true. The world at large has picked up on the atomic scale `` leg''of the vision, but has not understood the importance of the systems Autogenous one.
The First Foresight Conference was notable, among other things, Because it was extremely interdisciplinary. Working at the atomic scale involved pulling together knowledge from many branches of physics, chemistry, biology, and other physical sciences. Leading the way in the unfinished business of autogeny will likewise Involve pulling together knowledge from a wide variety of fields, ranging from biology and evolution to computer science (consider von Neumann's classic study of self-reproducing automata) to economics.
This year, for the 20th anniversary of that first groundbreaking conference, Foresight is organizing a new conference to concentrate on the principles, techniques, and impacts (social and economic) of Autogenous systems, from nanofactories to self-improving AIs. Your suggestions and help will be invaluable in making it a success.
The term "nanotechnology" has evolved over the years via terminology drift to mean "anything smaller than Microtechnology," such as nano powders, and other things that are nanoscale in size, but not referring to mechanisms that have been purposefully built from nanoscale components. See our "Current Uses" page for examples. This evolved version of the term is more properly labeled "nanoscale bulk technology," while the original meaning is now more properly labeled "molecular nanotechnology (MNT), or" nanoscale engineering, "or" molecular mechanics, "or" molecular machine systems , "or" molecular manufacturing. " Recently, the Foresight Institute has suggested an alternate term to represent the original meaning of nanotechnology: zettatechnology.
At the most basic technical level, MNT is building, with intent and design, and molecule by molecule, these two things: 1) incredibly advanced and extremely capable nano-scale and micro-scale machines and computers, and 2) ordinary size objects, using other incredibly small machines called assemblers or fabricators (found inside nanofactories). In a nutshell, by taking advantage of quantum-level properties, MNT Allows for unprecedented control of the material world, at the nanoscale, Providing the means by Which systems and materials can be built with exacting specifications and characteristics. Or, as Dr. K. Eric Drexler puts it "large-scale mechanosynthesis based on positional control of chemically reactive molecules."
MNT represents the state of the art in advances in biology, chemistry, physics, engineering, computer science and mathematics. The major research objectives in MNT are the design, modeling, and fabrication of molecular machines and molecular devices. The emergence of MNT - both infant and mature - has numerous social, legal, cultural, ethical, religious, philosophical and political implications.
At the most basic social level, MNT is going to be responsible for massive changes in the way we live, the way we interact with one another and our environment, and the things we are capable of doing.
A team led by Liming Dai of the University of Dayton discovered that a forest of vertically aligned carbon nanotubes, in which some of the carbon atoms have been swapped with nitrogen, can reduce oxygen in alkaline solution more effectively than the platinum catalysts that have been favored in fuel cells since the 1960s. Furthermore, the nanotube catalysts aren’t susceptible to the carbon monoxide poisoning that’s known to deactivate platinum catalysts. Dai attributes the high activity of the N-doped nanotube catalyst to the electron-accepting ability of the nitrogen atoms, which creates net positive charge on adjacent carbon atoms. This charge readily attracts electrons from the anode and drives the oxygen reduction reaction. “The demonstration of this new role of nitrogen doping in this paper is important and could be applied to the design and development of various other metal-free, efficient, oxygen-reducing catalysts—even new catalyst materials for applications beyond fuel cells,” he says. Dai’s group is currently working to incorporate the nanotube catalyst into a working fuel cell.
“This new discovery could have a fundamental impact on the commercial viability of the fuel-cell technology,” says Yushan Yan, a chemical engineering professor at the University of California, Riverside. He notes that the results would have been more compelling if Dai’s team had carried out the experiments in an acidic medium, where platinum seems to be necessary, instead of in an alkaline medium, where nonprecious metals are known to be as effective as platinum. “Nonetheless, seeing anything that is free of platinum rival platinum in activity and durability is absolutely exciting,” Yan adds.
Drexler is setting up an argument for the use of materials other than diamond, at least in early machines. In a previous entry, he has argued that he never advocated starting with diamond. While this may not be the best way to motivate the researchers who are currently pursuing his ideas in diamond, and while he certainly talked about diamond in several published works, including Engines of Creation, Nanosystems, and the Burch/Drexler nanofactory animation, it is worth looking at his current suggestions, since they may be (I say may be) the most efficient path to high-performance nanomachines and exponential manufacturing.
On his blog, Drexler makes it clear that this new equation applies to machines building structures of the same material that the machines themselves are built out of. This raises a question that has been answered at least in part for diamond-based machines, but not for other materials: whether the material can implement all the functionality that will be required of a complete nanomachine system.
If all that is wanted is nanoscale structures, then almost any material will do. But for a complete general-purpose manufacturing system, several different functions will be needed. One of the most basic is sliding surfaces, i.e., bearings. (Although it is theoretically possible to build a pantograph-style robot using only rigidly fastened springs, I would not want to try it.) Drexler mentions that materials chemistry often becomes more tractable as bonds become more polar or ionic (like salt and many minerals), as opposed to covalent (like carbon-carbon bonds). But I wonder whether such materials will be more likely to transfer atoms between surfaces.
I have said for a while that silica looks like potentially a good way to bootstrap to diamondoid. Silica can be made under water by protein machines, but is fairly stiff and quite modular (one might almost say digital) on a molecular scale. But carbon, depending on how it's connected, has a much wider range of properties than silica. A carbon-based machine could probably use electricity, since diamond is an excellent insulator and some buckytubes are excellent conductors. A silica machine would probably have to be purely mechanical.
I will be following Drexler's material suggestions with interest. They will become even more significant if it turns out that he has done as much work on machine designs using those materials as he once did with diamond.
A research team at Singapore's Institute of Materials Research and Engineering has made a 1.2-nm gear that can be directly and precisely controlled. (Edit: ScienceDaily has an article with the same text plus a cool picture of the gear.)
This is cool. But what really impressed me is the quote from the Executive Director of IMRE, Dr. Lim Khiang Wee: "Christian and his team's discovery shows that it may one day be possible to create and manipulate molecular-level machines. Such machines may, for example, walk on DNA tracks in the future to deliver therapeutics to heal and cure. There already exists at least one international roadmap for creating such productive nanosystems. As we push the frontiers of nanotechnology, we increase our understanding of new phenomena at the nanoscale. This paper is a valuable step on the long road to applying this understanding for discoveries and breakthroughs in nanotechnology and bring to reality the tiny nanobots and nanomachines from science fiction movies."
Let's look at that quote closely. Dr .Wee references Drexler's roadmap for productive nanosystems. He uses Drexler's term: "productive nanosystems," meaning nanomachines that not only move, but build stuff. Drexler has invented several terms that didn't fly, such as "zettatechnology," and others that were mutated beyond recognition, such as "nanotechnology," so it's nice to see this one adopted.
He has included some qualifiers: "may one day be possible," "a valuable step on the long road." He cites DNA as a possible building block for nanomachines. Recent breakthroughs have made me hopeful that DNA-based productive nanosystems are getting closer fast - so fast that I hesitate to estimate when the first one will be built. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, he's not afraid to acknowledge that research into tiny controllable gears is leading toward nanoscale machines that are considered science-fictional today.
