|
Current Issue Contents | Past Issues | Subscribe | Contact | Terasem Journals Home |
||||
|
Volume 4, Issue 2
|
Recombinant DNA and Self-replicating Molecular Manufacturing: Parallels and Lessons James B. Lewis, Ph.D Page 4 of 6 Despite the early recognition that the issue of feral self-replicating assemblers is a red herring, early attempts (in 2000) [1] to develop guidelines for advanced molecular nanotechnology, which explicitly reference the precedent of Asilomar for self-regulation of a powerful emerging technology, were heavily focused on restricting self-replicating nanotechnology. Even the current version of those guidelines [2], written in 2006, retains a prohibition against autonomous replicators. Commenting on the guidelines in 2006, Rothblatt [3] notes the disproportionate emphasis on prohibiting autonomous replication of nanotechnology systems: "The guidelines seem to take the position that self- Instead of prohibiting self-replicating nanotechnology, Rothblatt proposes establishing (via treaty), an international organization that would have "exclusive worldwide rights to self-replicator production rights. Instead of prohibiting self-replicating nanotechnology, Rothblatt proposes establishing (via treaty), an international organization that would have "exclusive worldwide rights " In responding to Rothblatt’s proposal, Kurzweil adds the thought that self-replicating nanotechnology will be a necessary component of any immune-type system to protect the world from pathological (or malicious) self-replication.
In such cases the relevant question becomes not low-level controls on the replication machinery, but the behavior of the intelligence controlling the systems. These might be much more difficult questions, but focusing on the low-level controls on the replication machinery distracts attention from the important problems. So, to return to the question: What lessons does Asilomar have to teach us about “reconciling conflicts, apprehensions, and scientific ambitions regarding self-replicating nanotechnology”? The set of problems facing self-replicating molecular manufacturing today is very different from the situation with recombinant DNA technology in 1975. Unlike recombinant DNA in 1975, self-replicating nanotechnology is not an existing technology. It is a visionary proposal about which the scientific mainstream remains largely skeptical, and the implementation of self-replicating molecular systems is still decades away. None of the work that needs to be done in the next decade or so to develop the basic technology is awaiting guidelines on how to prevent autonomous self-replicating manufacturing systems from escaping into the environment. The relevant comparison today to recombinant DNA in 1975 is the widespread environmental, health, and safety concerns with various types of nanomaterials that have already entered into widespread commercial use. A number of studies have provided evidence that there are indeed concerns about the effects of some nanomaterials on the environment and on human health, and some groups have advocated a moratorium on work with nanomaterials. It is imperative that all those involved in current day nanoscience and nanotechnology follow the example of Asilomar with respect to openness, sufficient scientific study to understand the problem, and adoption of
openness, sufficient scientific study to understand the problem, and adoption of regulations that evolve in step with evolving scientific understanding. Consideration of the EHS issues with current and next generation nanomaterials is beyond the scope of this presentation, but current activity in this area is intense [4]. At least superficially, it looks like this activity is following the lessons learned from Asilomar, although the size and complexity of the problem, the number of international stakeholders, and the immediate economic interests at stake, are far larger than was true with recombinant DNA in 1975, so it is too soon to predict outcomes.
[1] Draft Version 3.7 of June 2000 of the “Foresight Guidelines on Molecular Nanotechnology,” available at http://www.foresight.org/guidelines/2000june.html includes among other restrictions the statement: [3] "Alternative Models for Managing Self-Replicating Nanotechnology," Martine Rothblatt, The Journal of Geoethical Nanotechnology, 1, 7-12 (2006). http://www.terasemjournals.org/rothblatt_01a.html [4] Much information about nanomaterials EHS issues can be found on the web site of the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies of the PEW Charitable Trusts and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars http://www.nanotechproject.org/
|
Terasem Mission Educate the public on the practicality and necessity of greatly extending human life, consistent with diversity and unity, via geoethical nanotechnology and personal cyberconsciousness, concentrating in particular on facilitating revivals from biostasis.
|
||
|
TerasemJournal.com Home | Journal of Geoethical Nanotechnology | Journal of Personal Cyberconsciousness Copyright © 2006-08, Terasem Movement, Inc. Disclaimer |
||||
replication is unnecessary, uneconomic, and therefore unlikely. Yet they are overwhelmingly consumed with the issue of self-replication to the point that nearly half of the guidelines deal either explicitly or implicitly with self-replication."
