technology & society | nosleepingdogs

Book cover image from Amazon.

Nano, the emerging science of nanotechnology. Ed Regis.

I picked this book up at our Friends of the Library bookstore for a quarter, though when I saw the publication date of 1995 I had second thoughts. How could so old a book, on such a fast-moving aspect of technology, be worth reading?

But when I started it I was immediately drawn in, and after finishing it conclude that for us non-scientists, as well as for those interested in the background and implications of the whole “nano” idea, the book is well worthwhile. The focus is on Eric Drexler, who as an MIT engineering undergrad in 1976 formulated the basic idea of assembling substances or structures one molecule or atom at a time, and became what Apple used to call an evangelist for the idea for the succeeding decades.

Drexler was not the first to discuss the possibility of such constructions––that honor goes to the ingenious mind of Richard Feynman who broached the topic in a 1959 lecture––but he expanded upon it, foresaw not only multiple uses but also some of the social/economic consequences of a technology which could lead to all of us having tabletop “matter assemblers” which could produce anything, from a ribeye steak to car parts, using just about any old “stuff” as raw material. And Drexler organized others into a bi-coastal league of nano-fans to brainstorm, research, and support the vision. At least, he did that after the first few years when anxiety about the social impact, or the possibility of runaway assemblers covering the earth with “grey goo,” led him to keep the idea more or less under wraps.

Ed Regis is an experienced science writer of the sort that used to be dismissed as “popularizers,” because they write for the general reader, one who’s interested, educated, but not schooled in the particular branch of science under discussion. He writes for publications like the NY Times, Wired, and Scientific American, as well as writing books. He’s good at what he does.

This book, for example, explains Brownian motion (the jumping about that individual particles, from atoms to pollen grains, do when suspended in liquid) and the workings of scanning tunnelling microscopes (which proved able to manipulate individual atoms), and other such things, well enough that I was able to explain them to someone else. That doesn’t mean I have any real inkling of the physics or mathematics of it all but I have a degree of layman’s understanding which enables me to follow the discussion, and I can build on it if I wish to read more.

Brownian motion was early raised as a theoretical objection to the concept of moving atoms around to construct molecules: how could you do it if your atoms wouldn’t stay put? An early response was, “If our own cells can make molecules, then it can be done.” A later response was the demonstration that it had been done; researchers pushed atoms around to make letters and pictures. Since then, other researchers have used enzymes or gene-altered microorganisms to tailor-make specific molecules.

Regis includes a lot of what could be disparaged as unscientific human interest detail–personalities, anecdotes–but to me this added more than just readability, it added another dimension. The original concerns about the human future which motivated Drexler to think about fundamental technological change, the ability of a high school student to make his own scanning tunneling electron microscope, the accounts of scientific rivalries and misunderstandings, these have a place in a popular account of a technology that is so mind-boggling and promises or threatens such far-reaching upheavals in society.

As I finished, the question in my mind was “Why haven’t I heard more about huge strides in this technology in the years since the book’s publication in 1995?” I’m looking into that question now, with much more comprehension than I had before reading Regis’s book.

Further information

Books by Ed Regis at Amazon

Nanotech site interview of Regis

Same site’s links to articles, current uses, etc.

Online shopping’s had many recognized or anticipated effects, from thinning profit margins to boosting sales of specialized items, but I’m enthusiastic about how it makes “word-of-mouth” consumer information possible again.

As an example, I was looking to buy a pair of really comfortable walking shoes. I cared about comfort, comfort, and––oh yes, sturdiness. Don’t want them to fall apart in six weeks of regular wear. I’m retired, I can wear any damn shoes I want. Fibromyalgia makes my feet hurt all the time, and most shoes aggravate it.

So I went online looking for Clarke’s walking shoes, which had been recommended highly to me about 20 years ago. Back then spending $100 on a pair of shoes was out of the question. Today it has moved up on my priority list, and if I find a pair I like, I only need one pair. My searching took me to the online shoe emporium Zappo’s. They had a bunch of styles of Clarke’s. They also had customer comments for each, dozens of them. By the time I had read through the comments for 2 styles, I was sure that Clarke’s were not for me. Once made in England––terrific; then made in Portugal––pretty good; now made in China––forget it. The Chinese-made Clarke’s were reported to be stiff, uncomfortable, not true to size, and not holding up well.

I browsed through other shoe makers’ offerings at Zappo’s, following pointers from people who said things like, “Brand XY didn’t fit my narrow heel, but Brand ZZ was perfect, ” or “This one looks comfortable but is too inflexible, not like the last three pairs I got, so I am switching to Brand A.” I arrived at Keen’s shoes and read all the comments for half a dozen styles that looked possible, made my choice, and am very happy with them.

Back when communities and stores and numbers of products were smaller, people could do this sort of thing by literal word of mouth. Not so easy now. And, many of the comments I read included very specific idiosyncratic reviews, depending on what was important to each person. One said, “Great shoe but the sole really clogs up with mud and tracks it in; okay for city wear.” I live in the country; this shoe would have been pure aggravation, though it looked good in other respects. Another said, “Really comfortable and sturdy and provides good footing, but the uppers aren’t shiny and I can’t stand that about them.” We all have our priorities.

I suppose companies will begin posting numerous false but very specific testimonials (and anti-testimonials for their competitors’ products) but until then, reading a few dozen reviews about a product seems like a good way to check out how it has worked for others.

Brands in themselves don’t necessarily mean much any more, since “branding” has become a PR effort similar in intent to Pavlov training his dogs. The food in the dish now may be made (poorly or poisonously) in China––but the bell of “brand identity” is still supposed to make us salivate. Customer reviews give us a way to get up-to-date reality checks from a variety of other folks.