1. Universal Translation, Yuquing Gao, IBM
2. Synthetic Biology, Ron Weiss, Princeton University
3. Nanowires, Peidong Yang, University of California, Berkeley

Nanowires are a key element in many working nanodevices. They are being pioneered by, among others, Peidong Yang of U. C. Berkeley (also listed are James Ellenbogen, Mitre, McLean, VA; Charles Lieber, Harvard University and Nanosys; Lars Samuelson, Lund University and QuMat Technologies; and Zhong L. Wang, Georgia Institute of Technology). Nanowires are made in a special chamber, and using a series of specific chemical reactions, crystals are formed which grow upward like a tree. Such wires can be grown quickly and in bulk. They could be useful for the "lab on a chip" devices that are envisioned as a cheap and quick way to obtain accurate medical diagnoses. Other possible uses include cooling existing computer chips, energy generation, sensors for drug discoveries, flat panel displays and efficient lighting devices. Intel is planning to use nanowires in its next-generation chips.

4. Bayesian machine learning, Daphne Koller, Stanford University
5. T-rays, Don Arnone, Toshiba
6. Distributed Storage, Hari Balkrishnan, MIT
7. RNAi Therapy, Thomas Tuschl, Rockefeller University
8. Power Grid Control, Christian Rehtanz, ABB
9. Microfluidic Optical Fibers, John Rogers, University of Illinois
10. Personal Genomics, David Cox, Perlegen Sciences

This report was commissioned to offer "a comprehensive review of nanotechnology and artificial intelligence/robotics developments from an organisation with a reputation for technological expertise  Imperial College London. We asked them to document existing applications and to analyse current research and development (R&D), the main players behind these developments, and the associated incentives and risks."

"AI and robotics are likely to continue to creep into our lives without us really noticing. Unfortunately, many of the applications appear to be taking place amongst agencies, particularly the military, that do not readily respond to public concern, however well articulated or thought through."

"Nanotechnology and AI/robotics, together with biotechnology, may well be on a convergent path. In 2001 the National Science Foundation held a large workshop to look at the implications of this convergence and the implications for human abilities and productivity. AI could be boosted by nanotechnology innovations in computing power. Applications of a future nanotechnology general assembler would require some AI and robotics innovations. Equally, nanotechnology may converge much sooner with biotechnology as it uses the tools and structures of biological systems to generate tiny machines. Although the prospect of general assemblers may be quite distant, self-replicating machines that use the tools of biology  and look more like living things than machines  might be closer at hand through the convergence of bio- and nanotechnologies. Grey goo might not be a realistic prospect; green goo may be closer to the mark  quite how close is difficult to judge on the basis of the evidence in this report. Any creation that posed the prospect of being self-replicating would need to be handled with immense care to ensure environmental protection.

Whether any of the technological futures being scoped out in laboratories are what our general public would like is a question that can only be answered by asking them. If those concerned with the development of new technologies, and nanotechnology in particular, are convinced that the benefits they hope to generate will withstand scrutiny they should have no concerns about engaging and winning public support.

One reason for concern is the very regularity of engineered superfine particles. "Since shape and size play a large role in determining access to different compart- ments within the body or even within individual cells,this may mean that a given mass of nanoparticles could consist of a much higher concentration of particles of a specific size and shape. Greater delivery of nanoparticles to specific compartments or cellular organelles could result in greater toxicity compared to more heterogeneous combustion particles. On the other hand,the control over size and shape may also allow re-engineering of nanoparticles to avoid toxicity but still allow function." Durability as well as toxicity are issued for nanoparticles, in particular buckyballs and single walled carbon nanotubes. Balbus and Florini suggest that nanotechnology must of necessity change regulatory frameworks. "First,in most current regulatory programs,standards (and exemptions from them)are based on mass and mass concentration. Because of their high surface-area-to-mass ratios and enhanced surface activity, some nanomaterials are likely to prove potent at far lower concentration levels than those envisioned when threshold standards were initially set. Second,regulators often rely on structure-activity models to extrapolate and predict at least some types of toxicity for new conventional materials. Too little is currently known about nanomaterials to enable such extrapolation."

Four kinds of applicable standards used by OSHA for ensuring worker safety are reviewed, and are found wanting. The draft white paper on nanotechnology issued by the EPA in 2005 lacks specificity as regards the mechanism of regulatory assessments.

In reponse to these uncertainties and existing limitations, Balbus and Florini say "we believe two distinct kinds of initiatives are needed: first, a major increase in the federal investment in nanomaterial risk research; second, rapid development and implementation of voluntary standards of care pending development of adequate regulatory safeguards in the longer term."

One version of the structure, promoted by K. Eric Drexler's Foresight Institute, is voluntary compliance by scientists to science(not government)-generated ethics, a Baconian version of state-sponsored science which Bennett believes largely exists now. A second approach favors advance government regulation to avoid a backlash of public fear. A third approach favors avoidance of developing nanotechnology until its scope and impact are more fully understood, with some products and processes clearly eschewed. There are no direct laws (in 2004) governing nanotechnology and citizen panels may have limited effectiveness in guiding research.

However, Bennet says, a "more general perusal of the legal terrain  particularly post-1980  finds it shot through with implicit, latent, and embedded ethics bearing directly on novel technologies as a class, and therefore affecting NTS." (30) He lists a series of Acts and Laws which should apply to nanotechnology and discusses a recent series of court rulings on technology which also apply. "NTS critics should broaden their perspective," argues Bennet. Laws generally do not affect what gets invented or distributed; and "[a]ny attempt to fully address the regulation of NTS, as well as the more general recurrence of culturally and socially disruptive inventions, must come to grips with the distributed legal affinity described here. To the extent that law functions, in part, as a reservoir of desirable oughts, it would seem logical for a democratic community proactively to develop methods for addressing problematic aspects of technological change, rather than blindly encouraging technology transfer. As an alternative, Bennett suggests that "institutions capable of broadly engaging the emergence of novel technology are a dire social need. In our age perhaps no other phenomena so regularly forces us to reassess our societal goals and cultural commitments. In this sense, emerging technologies can be understood as challenging gifts. We are left to see whether our society is mature enough to manage them."

Bowman and Hodge note that although the term 'public interest' is "straightforward enoughit represents the common good, the collective good, the public benefit, or the national benefit, which are accessible to everyone(Mulgan, 2000)." But who sets the policy creating the specifics of public good is a political, contestable and deeply interested process. "The article maps a range of nanotechnology dialogue activities under way" in the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany, and Australia.

In the UK, public dialogue is being shaped by a variety of NGOs, the media and other stakeholders. In the US, corporations, federal initiatives and agencies and university research projects dominate the dialogue and press. In Germany, a 'traveling' public dialogue, sponsored by the federal government, and a few other government-related initiatives has been spurred by and developed since the "Magic Nano" incident. In Australia, a mixture of corporate, NGOs and governmental agencies have been involved.

While a range of priorities, participants, approaches and activities exist, the general public presence of nanotechnology has been very quiet. Nevertheless, governments are choosing to engage in regulation, rather than wait for trouble -- but even so, possibly the field is just one industrial accident away from a different landscape and dialogue. In sum, Bowman and Hodge say, their "analysis suggests that a wide range of strategic approaches are currently under way across the world with differing approaches to funding levels, innovativeness, visibility, and transparency. These in part reflect the different political and historical perspectives including, for example, reliance on the precautionary principle and the occurrence or avoidance of regulatory 'failures.'" Finally, "strong dialogue activities for protecting the public interest are likely to be necessary for nations actively pursuing a 'nanofuture.'"

Results showed that many (at all age levels) had difficulty with basic size-order concepts needed to understand nanotechnology. Further, "41% of respondents reported that they had heard of nanotechnology. Of those, only 42%were able to correctly define it. Correct definitions included mentioning a type of technology and small size. When asked where they had heard of nanotechnology, the most prevalent responses were mass media outlets including television, magazines and newspapers." (185) Most respondents had a neutral response to the "promise/perils" of nanotechnology.

Based on these results, Castellini et. al offer commentary and advice for scientists communicating with the public. First, the "primary challenges for engaging with audiences about technology topics in general are...understan[d]ing what prior knowledge and misconceptions a specific audience brings." (187) Specifically, "it is crucial to appreciate that people understand basic underlying facts about atoms and size but are often unable to conceptualize broader concepts. Effective communication requires...re-teaching these basic concepts about atoms and size scale before jumping into the details of research."

(187) They conclude, "[i]n our experience, such an approach can lead to a more positive attitude about the new technology topic being covered." (187)

He answers, first, policy makers are thought to be responsive to the general policy direction favored by mass opinion (Page and Shapiro 1992). Elites might not implement specific policy because of public opinion, but they are more likely to fund some scientific projects, and not others, when public preferences support the policy decision&. A second reason is that opinions about nanotechnology could be radically altered by exposure to dramatic events and new information because Americans opinions about nanotechnology are based on a minimal amount of factual knowledge (Cobb and Macoubrie 2004). Thus, this experiment might suggest where future opinions might go.

Americans are settling into largely uninformed opinions about nanotechnology. External cues -- trust in scientists, regulators, the media -- are part of the frame in which these opinions are shaped. What is issue framing? Issue framing is "the process of selecting and highlighting some facets of events or issues over their alternatives and making connections among them with the objective of promoting a particular interpretation or evaluation and a preferred solution. Abortion, for example, is typically framed by one side of the debate as 'the right to choose' and by the other side as 'abortion is murder.'" Cobb expected weak framing effects because Americans are not generally knowledgeable or polarized around the issue of nanotechnology, but frames emphasizing risks were expected to be more powerful than those emphasizing benefits.

Cobb describes his research acitivities as follows: "To examine potential framing effects on opinions about nanotechnology, I conducted an experiment embedded within a nationally representative phone survey. This survey of public attitudes about nanotechnology was a random-digit- dialed survey of adults eighteen years or older in the continental United States between late March and early April of 2004 (N = 1,536). Respondents were randomly assigned to one of ten experimental conditions: an over-sampled control group (N = 330) or one of nine unique framing conditions about the risks or benefits of nanotechnology (N = 134, each). Respondents in all conditions, even the control group, heard a brief, objective description about nanotechnology. Next, respondents in each of the nine framing conditions heard a distinct way of framing nanotechnology. In six of the experimental conditions, respondents listened to one-sided frames. Three of the one-sided frames were 'pro' and three were 'anti' nanotechnology. The remaining three conditions are two-sided frames that pit each of the preceding 'pro' frames against their equivalent antinanotechnology frames. Substantive questions about nanotechnology were then asked immediately following the frames."

His results showed that "risk frames were somewhat more effective than benefit frames, but this apparently occurs only when risk and benefit frames are heard in isolation of one another. In a balanced information environment, then, ambivalence rather than opinion change is a more plausible outcome." Cobb expects a change in opinions about nanotechnology in future because "respondents perceptions were not fundamentally altered in this study even though they were significantly affected. Opinions never completely reversed from support to opposition, for example, or from un-trusting to trusting."

He concludes: "the results presented here suggest that Americans opinions about nanotechnology are malleable but that there are limits to changing their opinions. Americans begin with a basically positive view of nanotechnology anddespite its weak factual basisthis view remains surprisingly constant even when exposed to negative frames. Other main findings include: (1) even in an area with opinions based on little specific knowledge, general frames (overall attitudes toward science) produced less effect; (2) positive frames were sometimes almost as efficacious as negative ones, in contrast to past findings; and (3) trust of elites was low and easily driven lower by negative frames. Studies like this one provide important insights into the effect of framing on a broad category of public policycomplex issues where the public is ill-informed and knows it. Thus, the findings here may well have implications for framing in other areas, including tax policy, weapons policy, and complex social programs.

This article reports is one set of findings in a tripartite study "designed to methodically answer this and other questions by comparing public perceptions across: (1) an uninformed condition (the national survey), (2) a moderately informed condition (quasi-experimental discussion groups around the country), and (3) a fully informed condition (two three- month long Citizens Technology Forums, based on the Danish- model Citizens Consensus Conference)." [For part two, see Macoubrie in this list]

Among their findings are the following: first, and as expected, "more than 80% of survey respondents indicated that they had heard 'little' or 'nothing' about nanotechnology." As indicated above, people were generally positive about nanotechnology. "For the entire sample, a sizeable percentage (38%) thought risks and benefits would be about equal, and slightly more (40%) predicted that nanotechnology would produce more benefits than risks, while only half that many (22%) said risks would outweigh the benefits." In their discussion, Cobb and Macoubrie say "[ve]ry few Americans report being angry about nanotechnology, and a solid minority reports feeling worried. Indeed, about four out of every five respondents claim not to be worried at all. Conversely, about 70% said they are very or somewhat hopeful about nanotechnology."

Risk/benefit perceptions were probed more closely. They are affected by race, education, familiarity with nanotechnology and trust in corporate leaders. As regards education, "[w]hile knowledge does not affect feeling angry or worried, it strongly shapes feeling hopeful (Table 10). Less knowledge about nanotechnology is associated with far less hopefulness than more knowledge. Almost 27% of low knowledge respondents reported not feeling hopeful about nanotechnology, but just half that percentage (13%) of high knowledge respondents said they feel that way. Conversely, while just 27% of low knowledge respondents claim to be very hopeful, 44% of high knowledge respondents say the same thing."

Trust in the business leaders promoting nanotechnology, also probed closely, is affected by familiarty with nanotechnology, anger about technology, and exposure to Prey. "Slightly more than 60% of respondents said they had 'not much trust' in business leaders ability or willingness to minimize risks to humans. Although a sizeable percentage claimed to have 'some' or 'a lot' of trust (40%), fewer than 5% of the sample said they had 'a lot' of trust." Cobb and Macoubrie were surprised "that knowledge did not condition trust in business leaders. While trust is low in general, familiarity led to greater trust, while exposure to Prey lowered it. Also of interest, those who reported having less trust also reported feeling more angry about nanotechnology."

In general, Cobb and Macoubrie found that "respondents expected benefits to be more prevalent than risks, and they reported feeling hopeful about nanotechnology rather than worried. Their most preferred potential benefit of nanotechnology is 'new and better ways to detect and treat human diseases,' and they identified 'losing personal privacy to tiny new surveillance devices' as the most important potential risk to avoid. The most discouraging aspect to the data is respondents lack of trust in business leaders to minimize nanotechnology risks to human health." One unexpected finding is that benefits other than security or products matter to the survey respondents. "Most interestingly, even after 9/11 and the war in Iraq, increased national security benefits of nanotechnology still ranked less highly than environmental benefits." They also learned that a nanotechnology "arms race" was "the risk of most concern to those who had read Prey or discussed it with someone who had."

They conclude: "the bottom line seems to be that openly discussing the critical issues by giving accessible balanced information (not presently competing beliefs, but the agreed-upon principles relied upon by scientists), is probably the best way to prevent uninformed opinion from coalescing around negative perceptions based on improbable events." Overall, these data indicate that while Americans do not necessarily presume benefits and the absence of risks, their outlook is much more positive than not.

Ebbeson et. al. argue that ethical approach to nanotechnology does not have to be built from scratch. Rather, the intersection between technology and ethics has been covered, certainly by a well-described set of issues around biotechnology. They say readers should "make a clear distinction between, on one hand, the types of ethical problems and the principles for assessing them and, on the other hand, the concrete analysis of assessment. We claim that a reasonably sound knowledge base has already been acquired in the field of biotechnology that can be extended to nanotechnology."

They group the "ethically relevant features of nanotechnology" into three groups: risk problems, privacy problems and problems of transhumanism. All of these, they say, have "parallels within the fields of biotechnology, biology, and genetics" and for each, they adduce examples.

Next, they argue that "a promising approach to the ethics of nanotechnology is so-called principlism (i.e., the claim that a limited number of basic ethical principles are generally accepted). We show that in the ethically relevant features of nanotechnology mentioned above&the general ethical principles of respect for autonomy, integrity, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice are at stake." Again, examples are enumerated. They argue that these principles, derived from Beauchamp and Childress (2001) are cross-cultural.

Ebbesen et. al. further suggest that ethics for nanotechnology must be applied in the political-public-legislative arena and also in the professional arena. A good basis for ethical behavior in biotechnology exists, and can be applied to nanotechnology.

The history of regulation and control includes the labor movements of the 19th and 20th centuries, the establishment of agencies for regulation of public goods, the international agreements made in the wake of World War II, and the responses to authors such as C. P. Snow and Rachel Carson. In the latter twentieth century, the EPA was founded and the concept of "coresponsibility" was coined. Currently, various forms of technology assessment are working towards regulation, including initiatives like the federally funded ELSI Progam attached to the Human Genome Project.

"Upstream engagement" is another concept being used to regulate and control technology development. Fisher et. al. say "[t]hrough dialogue and other engagement practices, upstream approaches seek to augment traditional communication models so that discourse and learning can flow not only from policy makers, scientists, and engineers to the public but also in the reverse direction. Societal influences are thus meant to help shape technological development trajectories before technological paths build up momentum and become relatively locked in. Such efforts aim at more broadly orchestrated and more effective societal inputs than those used by past attempts to assess, regulate, and direct technology." The Danish Board of Technology and the UK Select Committee on Science and Technology have engaged in assessment activities of this sort. In particular, nanotechnology has become a trying and proving ground for such techniques.

Fisher et. al. argue that midstream modulation is an effective method for working with technologists. They describe their concept as follows: "...the midstream corresponds to the implementation stage of a large, distributed, and dynamic decision process. For simplicity, upstream decisions may be characterized as determining what research to authorize, midstream decisions as determining how to implement R&D agendas, and down-stream decisions as determining whether to adopt developed technologies. As such, midstream decisions may not seem to carry the same weight or visibility as those made during the upstream stage. Still, they present a unique and largely overlooked opportunity for governance." Upstream agenda-setting occurs too early, they say, and downstream regulation can be too late.

Modulation is the act of creating spaces for reflection in the process of research and development. They describe its particulars in terms of capacity-building. "Technoscientific capacity for midstream modulation must take root in operative local and distributed conditions, constraints, and capabilities. A key to capacity building is for actors to become attentive to the nested processes, structures, interactions, and interdependencies, both immediate and more removed, within which they operate. Such attentiveness leads to what is termed here 'reflexive awareness.'"

They suggest that other approaches are also effective -- for instance, Real Time Technology Assessment, as practiced by the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State. They conclude "...midstream modulation will work best in tandem with sources of intervention, feedback, and collaboration, such as ELSI research, upstream engagement, CTA, RTTA, and others. Nevertheless, midstream modulation represents a linchpin in the effort to integrate promotion and con-trol and is indispensable if such efforts are to be wide-spread and lasting."

Among the questions that have arisen in the environmental debate are who is reponsible for the side effects of nanotechnology? Should there be a moratorium on development? Who judges the level of risk? Are there lessons to be learned from other fields and other products and other regulatory frameworks? Another debate centers around the perception that the benefits and risks of nanotechnology will not be equally distributed to rich and poor. Yet another issue is privacy and control, especially the ease with which, it appears, medical procedures will be done and medical information will be gathered about patients. Who should see and use such information? Nanotechnology suggests that the border between technology and life will be further blurred. Should the human nervous system be linked up mechanically to, for instance, control other objects? What are the boundaries of humanity?

Grunwald argues that these are none of them new questions. Instead, the ethical questions themselves have shifted in relevance. There are some "structurally novel" aspects of ethics in nanotechnology which arise from the new role of public discourse. Also, as fields that were separate converge in nanotechnology, they bring with them the ethical debates that characterized their own fields. Ethical assessment should be a concomitant process of technological development, accessed early on and used as a reflective tool. "Technology assessment and ethics have the responsibility, in the view of the rapid and momentous developments in nanotechnology, to make the societal process of learning which is always connected with the introduction of a new technology as constructive, transparent, and effective as possible by means of timely investigation and reflection."

Nanoparticles form a new challenge because not only is there a lack of data, there is also a lack of information about the basic nature and environmental interaction of these particles. Parameters of effect are not the only point in question: basic cause and effect mechanisms are in question. Particle size in PM2.5 pollution studies is linked to toxicity, but the mechanisms of effect are uncertain. Exposure mechanisms for nanoparticles (in air, in water) may change the end results for those exposed. Moreover, because of their extremely narrow specifications and interactions, a study done one one nanoparticle may not be generalizable to all nanoparticles.

Kandlikar et al. proposes to supplement regular risk assessment techniques, ineffective in the case of nanoparticles, with expert judgment approaches. These approaches elicit judgments from a wide range of experts on different parts of the risk causal chain and look for consensus. "Often, and especially in early stages of a scientific issue when uncertainty is high, expert assessment is used to structure problems, to indicate key variables, and to examine relation ships and influences between variables by building influence diagrams." Kandlikar et. al. describe the method for developing these expert consensus judgments: "The expert judgment process begins with a set of qualitative questions administered in an open-ended interview format to a small group of experts....These interviews lay the groundwork for developing expert assessment protocol to be administered to a larger group of experts. We call this a protocol rather than a survey because of the effort to provide structure and detail in setting out the relevant questions.It is not a survey of overall opinions on nanoparticle risks,but a tool to identify judgments and provide diagnostic guidance." To ensure balance, experts should meet a variety of standards and be drawn from a variety of backgrounds.

Kandlikar et al also use examples to illustrate how studying expert consensus/disagreement helps in research prioritization and budget allocation exercises by risk managers or managers of funding agencies.

The current politics of nanoscale emergence are in tension: can scientists have provisional control or complete control of matter? Control in biotechnology depends upon growth, upon provisional control. Kearnes glosses the early discussion of the field between Feynman and Drexler and notes that life is seen in their texts as entirely mechanistic, as something to be completely controlled. Nanoscale processes had to be mastered. Other scientists see nanoscale processes as steps to be harnessed.

Deleuze discussed control as the latter -- the process minutely and momentarily controlled. Matter and artistic representation of matter are always in flux at the smallest scale. He finally argues that "the design, control and precision necessary to generate these structures emerges within the structures themselves and the processes through which they are formed."

Keller comments: "Nanotechnology is likely to be particularly affected by these kinds of interactions because of its great promise and the unusually early public attention it has received....[It] is, in some respects, a packaging of a very broad range of basic research activities into a "mission-like" activity." Overpromising is a persistent problem in the field. He concludes, 'The challenge will be to eschew an approach that focuses entirely on technical questions of safety, even though those questions are vital to address. In a sense, just as the very concept of nanotechnology as a quasi-mission is an experiment, the approach to dealing with the social dimensions of the technologys introduction is another real-time experiment: an attempt to understand how best to balance the necessary delegation of responsibility for the detailed aspects of a new technology to those who are expert in its science, with the need to inform and include the public in the larger questions concerning its use."

First, the principle of substantial equivalence rates novel products (e.g., GM foods) in the light of counterparts that are known to be safe. He says that the "use of substantial equivalence and a process-product model for regulating products of biotechnology is likely to find acceptance among future regulators of nanotechnology." However, Mehta thinks that "the use of substantial equivalence and reliance upon an artificial distinction between product and process has fostered a regulatory approach that excludes the public from participating in a meaningful way."

Second, as with GM foods, labeling is likely to be complex and divisive. He says, "[t]he lesson for future technologies like nanotechnology is that labeling is likely to be a complex regulatory and public relations nightmare. It is likely that debates over mandatory and voluntary labeling and process versus product will emerge when consumers are exposed to more products produced by nanotechnology."

Finally, Mehta says, while a rigid application of the precautionary principle will prevent some kinds of disasters, it will also block risk assessments of allergenicity and toxicity.

His concise conclusion: "Confusion over the use of substantial equivalence, a failure to put in place mandatory labeling laws for GMfoods, and reconceptualization of the spirit of the precautionary principle erodes trust and makes governance more complex."

"Blood Music" chronicles an uncontrolled mad scientist and "doomed self-experimenter;" In The Diamond Age , the "pursuit of happiness is not so much enhanced by nanotechnology as it is threatened and submerged." Miksanek adds: "Surrounded by and immersed within technological brilliance, the inhabitants of The Diamond Age nevertheless often appear a bit dimmed by paranoia, inhumanity, and spiritual lethargy." The First Immortal, by contrast, "anticipates a twenty-first century essentially devoid of death, in which biological immortality becomes a reality."

Nanotechnology is legitimized by corporations, by the U.S. government, and has taken root in the public's imagination. It is likely to proceed, with accompanying debate. Miksanek concludes "Precise, powerful, and nearly invisible, nanotechnology might also be inevitable. Recent scientific research and developments support the belief that nanotechnology is inching from theory to reality, and medicine is poised to reap its rewards."

Nanotechnology, being disruptive and interdisciplinary, requires new structures for regulation. It actively entered the public imagination through Crichton's Prey. The use of chemical reactions to create nano-sized particles is not new, but the very specific control and high rate of production of nanoparticles is new. The lack of existing regulatory structures, the new reach of powers, and the fears of unexpected results suggest that perhaps a moratorium is reasonable, but unlikely. Mills and Fledderman hope for an ongoing international dialogue on benefits and harms of nanotechnology.

Health and safety, medicine and privacy will all be affected. There will be economic, international and legal issues to be resolves. "Education is the key to success of nanotechnology, not only for workforce development, but also to create public awareness and acceptance, and a sound legislative and regulatory environment." Best practices can be derived from lessons learned from the plastics industry (mostly after-the-fact), the Internet, biotech and the Human Genome Project. Now, on the cusp of the industrial explosion, is the time to address socially relevant issues.

There are many studies of fine particles and concomitant regulations that some legislators believe are applicable to nanotechnology, but Morgan says that nanoparticles have such unqiue properties that there may be no comparable studies. Borrowing may add to the confusion.

In such fields, "expert elicitation is used to fill the gaps." Another useful tool is the influence diagram, which is a representation of a complex problem relying upon "many different sources and types of information." Morgan's research used experts to create an influence diagram. The experts were asked "to identify a set of particle-related characteristics that have the potential to influence risk, or more specifically, exposure and toxicity."

Morgan found that assessment involved the presence of nano-materials, the uptake capacity, the transport and fate of nano materials and their toxic effects. Her model became more complex as experts identified, among other properties, surface reactivity, solubility, adsorption tendency, surface area, shape, degree of agreggation, and so on. Each model could be broken down into further specificities. "The diagram lays out a broad array of potential relationships that could be investigated, and it gives researchers a context within which to interpret and build on results from such studies." She notes that "this framework is designed to incorporate research results as they are generated, and therefore serve as a tool for estimating the potential for human health and environmental risk."

There are some scientists who are aligned against the "anti-aging" future -- they see it as bizarrely unhuman, probably only for the rich, and in some cases, patently fraudulent. Proponents say they simply wish to increase the "health-span" of life -- so that aging is not accompanied by debility. Outside of the proponents and opponents within science proper are journals, associations, books and publications in a grey-zone of semi-science. There are regular attempts to curb or prevent anti-aging fraud practiced upon the public. These boundary wars, says Mykytyn, "expose issues of funding and legitimacy."

Nanotechnology is drawn into this debate as leading figures like Ray Kurzweil predict that nanotechnology will expand life-expectancy ("turn off disease and aging"). Others, such as Aubrey de Grey, suggest that the rate of improvements will catch up with us as we are aging, and allow us to take advantage of more and more powerful therapies. Characterizing the field, Mykytyn says "The roadmaps which deal in the biological feasibility embrace a few main threads of hope and scientific practice; they primarily include work in nanotechnology, stem cell therapy, and gene therapy. Similarly, the A4Ms [an anti-aging group] doubling-every-3.5-years-technological knowledge refers to key areas the organization believes to be the most likely to succeed in anti-aging endeavors: genetic engineering and stem cell research, cloning, nanotechnology, artificial organs, and digital cerebral interfacing (wherein even memories can be digitally stored)."

Hucksterism and a sense of natural order prevent the anti-aging science from seeming legitimate or worthy of funding. But aging has come to be seen as a "fixable" problem, worthy of funding, especially as America ages. A moral imperative has entered the debate: we ought to do what we can do. Mykytyn sees these moral imperatives as taking more definite shape. "Perhaps, as the grounding histories become less public than the roadmaps to the future, our triumphing of biotechnology will become an embedded 'fact' of life. Now that the U.S. federal government has taken an active interest in anti-aging medicine and the public has been enchanted (as evidenced both by the swelling financial expenditures on anti-aging products/services and by the attention to anti-aging in popular and scientific press), the imagined future is beginning to take a shadowy but very real shape today and orients our relationship to our collective history."

Nordman discusses the cover of a brochure "Nanotechnology: Shaping the World Atom by Atom," which conflates space flight, knowledge of the universe beyond Earth, and nanotechnology. We desire to conquer nature as we remember our trip to the moon as the pinnacle of scientific endeavor.

There is a triple scale employed in the picture -- human and much larger than human as well as smaller than the eye can see. No instrument can create such a view, and in fact, the instruments for "seeing" at the nanoscale are in the process of development. What, asks Nordmann, will nanotechnology be applied to next, and if it is health and the body, how long will we be "humans?" "By opening a space of questions about the future of nanotechnology, the image is not therefore neutral or innocent."

Worker exposure and labeling are unsolved problems. A federak cross-Agency research group needs to be established. They underscore the need for nano-specific regulations, and are skeptical of the value of voluntary compliance. They say: An array of good stewardship approaches to nanotechnology development would increase public confidence and market stability. In June, 2005 NRDC submitted comments to EPA that were signed by 20 other public interest groups. We continue to insist that such measures include: " take immediate action to prevent uses of nanomaterials that may result in human exposures or environmental releases, unless reasonable assurances of safety are demonstrated beforehand; " label products that contain nanomaterials, or are made with processes that use nanomaterial; " publicly disclose information on potential risks; " include toxicity information on nanomaterials for worker protection on material safety data sheets; " increase safety testing conducted by independent or government laboratories subject to sunshine laws that allow public access; " conduct comprehensive assessment of the environmental and human health concerns that may arise across the life cycle including production, use, and disposal of nanotech products.

The NBER allows researchers to categorize by year and technology category as well as by other patents cited. Park et. al use a modified version of Pavitt's technology classification scheme. They consider "innovativeness" as measured by the mean value of the number of patents held by all the firms in a particular sector. Their research offered four findings:

Peckerar cites David Hilbert, a mathematician who succinctly set out the challenges of his field to his peers. Within two decades, many of the 23 problems he named had be solved or tackled. Hilbert sought only those problems which were a) general and conceptual b) would provide new capabilities and c)spur on new work. These criteria, argues Peckerar, ought to applied to an organization such as the NNI. "Buzz" ought not to dominate, and he gives the not-well-thought-through example of quantum dots to argue for the sort of project he believes should not be funded.

Although such a large and cross-disciplinary project as the NNI has few precedents, Peckerar says that there are real problems to be solved, and the interfaces between disciplines are the place to solve them. He offers a list, like Hilbert's to spur further research. Among them: "can we make a predictive model of a cell?" "will we be able to image molecular assemblages of a size significant to most biological processes?" "Will we be able to use Einstein's 'spooky action at a distance' to help address any of the above questions?" Peckerar hopes that scientists avoiding rigorous peer review and problems poorly defined will be excluded from the work of the NNI and more traditional DoD lines of funding.

Then scientists began to consider whether MNT was, in fact, possible, and if so, if it should be at the "funding table." A heated debate ensued. Peterson argues that we are at a crossroads with regards to nanotechnology. The NNI, she suggests, is not working towards MNT but will inevitably do so, taking up the Feynman Grand Challenge. She suggests that the US needs to look at intellectual property issues and how to control the possibilites for weapons proliferation. She dismisses fears that self-replication will be possible or permitted, and urges restraint with rhetoric of "science as savior."

To begin, molecular manufacturing is any technology that implements (1) digital operations, (2) nanoscale construction, (3) self-manufacture, (4) programmable properties, and (5) low error rates. Phoenix pairs this definition with examples drawn from present-day technologies to illustrate each of five necessary components. Next, Phoenix analyzes two technologies in terms of the definition: nucleic acid engineering, and carbon lattice mechanosynthesis.

Finally, Phoenix raises several questions that can be asked about any molecular manufacturing technology preparatory to estimating its impact and value: as explored briefly for each technology, several factors limit the areas where a manufacturing technology might compete with or replace existing technologies. The questions are as follows: How comprehensive is the self-manufacturing step? What materials are produced? What range of products is produced? How easily does this integrate with other technologies? How powerful are the applicable design tools? Ultimately, Phoenix intends to give speculation about the the possibilities of nanotechnology a grounding and also provide tools for assessment of near-term manufacturing-related nanotechnologies. "The definition and examples presented here should clarify these debates, shifting discussion from the feasibility of an abstract and poorly defined concept to the impact of any of several candidate technologies."

Earlier surveys done in the UK in a face-to-face poll showed that understanding of nanotechnology was limited (only 19% could define it), those who did understand the subject generally were positive. The US and Canadian numbers were a bit higher as regards familiarity and feeling positive about nanotechnology.

"The comparison of key results from the two countries helps illustrate how social and cultural differences contribute to reactions to new technologies, including nanotech," says Priest. Public opinion rises from about five distinct groups, which Priest calls "true believers," "utilitarians," "moral authoritarians," "ethical populists," and "democratic pragmatists." There is a larger group in the US predisposed to be welcoming of any new technology than exists in Canada. On the whole, Priest argues many people have not yet made up their minds, and "this finding should underscore the importance of paying serious attention to what people want, to the way that they evaluate risks and benefits, and to their ethical concerns."

Governance is necessary, but there are distinct deficits of the risk governance process today. Nanomaterials in the workplace are not measured and assessed adequately and the knowledge of what constitutes a risk is uncertain. The agencies responsible for regulation are fragmented and weakly coordinated between stakeholders and policy-makers. Industries are waiting on regulations before forging ahead. Moreover, the public is uncertain about the technology and about its benefits. All in all, potential risk and response are ill-defined.

"The International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) has identified a governance gap between the requirements pertaining to the nano- rather than the micro-/macro- technologies," say Renn and Roco. The novel attributes uncovered by nanotechnology research require new risk-benefit assessment tools. They say "at present, nanotechnology innovation proceeds ahead of the policy and regulatory environment." The IRGC envisions a four-stage cycle of management and assessment with communication at the center.

Using a series of frames, Renn and Roco sketch out responses and scenarios for different types of nanotechnology development. They argue that "the governance gap is significant for those passive nanostructures that are currently in production and have high exposure rates; and is especially significant for the several 'active' nanoscale structures and nanosystems that we can expect to be on the market in the near future." They compare various risk analysis methods to see what kinds of policies might be properly supported by different methodologies. They conclude with key research in risk, and the methods for communicating that risk to stakeholders.

As Sandia Labs, various projects illustrate the potential of nanotechnology. Materials structured in nanolayers may offer low-energy light sources and could save the US $25 billion per year -- as well as reducing carbon emission -- through new white-light illumination. Nanocrystals may use Q-dots to allow "individual biological processes to be tracked simultaneously" in real time. Three dimensional nano-materials can be used as films to "selectively capture and preconcentrate target chemicals for detection and identification.

Listing future concerns, Romig says that an important challege to "achieving manufacturing control over nanotechnology is the development of predictive models for self-assembly." He also cites the need to reduce adhesion and wear in microelectromechanical systems and create active nanoscale coatings.

Most important for modeling is the prediction of toxicology and the interaction of nanoparticles with the environment. Romig asserts the need for relevant measures and regulatory standards for nanoparticles. He praises the NNI's set-aside for ELSI issues and recommends that the National Toxicology Program have a formal linkage with these studies. He urges unrestricted research, with the caveate that scientists should avoid research that is morally repugnant or morally ambiguous or presents an imminent threat to national security. He finally urges money for basic research into physics, applied research in manufacturing, and strategic plans for linking work in the micro and macro scale. This paper was the "2003 Distinguished Lecture in Materials and Society ASM International."

Enclosures are alternative mechanisms to secure corporate control over biological products and processes and other emerging technologies. New enclosures allow companies to avoid the unpredictability of intellectual property laws --in the technical area and especially in the political arena. Rather, they seek biological monopolies such as genetic use restriction technologies (GURTs) for crops and livestock and also through remote sensing tools like satellites. Legal contracts are also in play with new clauses like "right of venue" controlling which court jurisdiction can be used or dictation of farming conditions. Also employed are patent monopolies and mergers of intellectual property. Nanotechnology, partaking of the aims and employed in the development of biotechnology, will most likely freely borrow from the enclosure techniques developed for biotechnology. "Civil societies and governments need to understand and evaluate New Enclosures because they threaten to erode the rights of farmers and workers, undermine national sovereignty, and promote corporate consolidation."

The questions about perceived risks had participants put nanotechnology in a context of other risky products, which they rated from asbestos (most risky) to skis (least risky). Nanotechnology used in sunscreen, ammunition, food packaging and cancer-treating applications fell in the upwards range down to the middle.

Among the factors influencing this ranking in individuals was "dread risk," a set of health-related fears, and "distrust" of governmental agencies responsible for regulation and control of nanotechnology. Lay people were most moved by "dread risk." Experts were influenced by "dread risk" and by distrust of governmental agencies responsible for regulation and control. Women perceived greater risks than did men. Within the public, those who trusted technology generally feared nanotechnology less than those who did not. Overall, laypeople saw more risk in nanotechnology and had less trust in government agencies than the experts did. Both perceived the same level of benefit.

They conclude, "Lay people use different cues to assess the risks association with nanotechnology than experts." Siegrist et. al. suggest that researchers should distinguish between trust (belief that there are shared values) and confidence (belief in an outcome) for a better understanding of public attitudes. Further research is necessary "to understand how social processes might influence the perception and acceptance of nanotechnology." This research should include industry and governmental agencies.

3. silicon photonics
4. metabolomics
5. magnetic-resonance force microscopy
6. universal memory
7. bacterial factories
8. environmatics
9. cell-phone viruses
10. biomechatronics.

Many parallels exist. Both series used and created big stars, Schwarzenegger and Reeves, and both made immense amounts of money. For each, the plot turned on a technology resistance movement. Thematically each exposed the "dark" side of technology. Likewise in both there is a plot and theme reversal, in which the machine becomes as valuable as a human being, and essential to the human future.

Neither film, says van der Laan, criticizes a tech-dominated future. These films carry mixed messages, but on the whole, they are propaganda for a uncritical acceptance of a man-machine merge. van der Laan glosses Benjamin, Lynn White, Heitler and Russo on the shaping of society by technology and argues that our true condition as fully human is threatened by those who welcome the fusion with, and reign of, machines.

This article explores three dimensions of uncertainty in emerging debates over nanotechnology: imagination, regulation, and participation. In imagination, Wilsdon finds "nano-radicals," among them Eric Drexler, "nano-realists," typified by Richard Smalley, and "nano-critics," the most vocal of which has been ETC. There is agreement from all sides that any sort of nano-disaster is going to be more manageable with a legal framework of regulations in place. However, the degree of necessarily regulation is in debate, with some arguing that current regulations are sufficient, and others, more vocal, arguing that nanoparticles have unique properties not covered by existing laws and regulations. On this point, Wilsdon argues that public trust can be lost not by a disaster, but by a conviction that the government has green-lighted a new technology with no more than a cursory glance at its potential problems. Public participation, then, needs to be moved "upstream." "What might this look like in practice?" Wilsdon asks. "First, it requires funding streams and research priorities to be opened to broader social scrutiny. Second, it requires new forms of 'public peer review' or 'real-time technology assessment' that bring more diverse forms of social intelligence into scientific research at an early stage." Wilsdon concludes that the debate has hardly even begun.

Woodhouse sums up as follows: "One of the primary lessons of technological innovation from the 20th century is that advance prediction is unreliable, and that there is no substitute for learning by doing about both the upside and the downside of complex new technologies [19]. Yet such learning requires considerable time, and the present pace of innovation may not allow sufficient time or attention for appropriate monitoring and gradual learning from experience. What it would take to bring this issue forcefully to the attention of nanoscientists, government officials, scholars, business executives, and the attentive public lurks just beneath the surface of many of the articles in this issue....Readers may join me inbeing led to reflect on how far supposedly democratic, supposedly knowledge-based societies still have to go in arranging social institutions capable of shaping a technological civilization deserving of the term."